Post by pg13 on Jan 11, 2024 11:40:04 GMT
Since I'm currently engaged in a debate punctuated with lots of personal attacks towards myself elsewhere, I thought I would take a look at the prosecution's witness who is a psychologist dealing with research on child abuse.
Witness is Director of Mental Health Services at the Care Center, which is a child abuse treatment program, child physical abuse, sexual abuse treatment program in Sacramento, California, United States. And an Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California Davis Medical Center.
The following excerpts are very important ones to argue:
I mean, this really seems to be commonsense....doesn’t it?
Yet the last couple of decades have seen a significant proportion of people discounting the possibility of people lying about abuse.
Be they adults and/or minors.
Note also that there doesn't even need to be a high incidence of false allegations to occur in order for the possibility to exist in the first place.
Much less research demonstrating in some way the frequency of false allegations themselves.
Witness is Director of Mental Health Services at the Care Center, which is a child abuse treatment program, child physical abuse, sexual abuse treatment program in Sacramento, California, United States. And an Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California Davis Medical Center.
The following excerpts are very important ones to argue:
MR. MESEREAU: But changing stories about the details of alleged sexual abuse can also be consistent with lies, true.
Anthony Joseph Urquizo: Lies with regard to.
MR. MESEREAU: Sexual abuse.
Anthony Joseph Urquizo: Again, I would agree that that’s possible.
MR. MESEREAU: In other words, if you see details being added each time a child tells a story about alleged sexual abuse, that might be an indication, as you said, that the child was abused, or it might be an indication that the child is a flat-out liar, right.
Anthony Joseph Urquizo: Well, and I think that’s why Dr. Summit included it in the Child Sex Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, because the presentation was, back in 1983, that just because a child wasn’t completely perfect, then their disclosure was unconvincing or they weren’t telling the truth. What we have since learned from research since 1983 was that the pattern that is common for kids who have been sexually abused sometimes included mistakes, or errors, or they may goof up on some of the details. And so I’m not making a statement that, “Okay, you made a mistake, and so -- with regard to the disclosure, and so you are or are not sexually abused.” I’m trying to dispel the misperception that a juror may have related to the way in which a child discloses sexual abuse. Just because they make a mistake doesn’t mean it’s unconvincing or doesn’t mean that they weren’t abused.
MR. MESEREAU: And just because they add new details, new stories, new dates, new versions, doesn’t mean they’re not liars either, does it.
Anthony Joseph Urquizo: Right. It could go either way.
Anthony Joseph Urquizo: Lies with regard to.
MR. MESEREAU: Sexual abuse.
Anthony Joseph Urquizo: Again, I would agree that that’s possible.
MR. MESEREAU: In other words, if you see details being added each time a child tells a story about alleged sexual abuse, that might be an indication, as you said, that the child was abused, or it might be an indication that the child is a flat-out liar, right.
Anthony Joseph Urquizo: Well, and I think that’s why Dr. Summit included it in the Child Sex Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, because the presentation was, back in 1983, that just because a child wasn’t completely perfect, then their disclosure was unconvincing or they weren’t telling the truth. What we have since learned from research since 1983 was that the pattern that is common for kids who have been sexually abused sometimes included mistakes, or errors, or they may goof up on some of the details. And so I’m not making a statement that, “Okay, you made a mistake, and so -- with regard to the disclosure, and so you are or are not sexually abused.” I’m trying to dispel the misperception that a juror may have related to the way in which a child discloses sexual abuse. Just because they make a mistake doesn’t mean it’s unconvincing or doesn’t mean that they weren’t abused.
MR. MESEREAU: And just because they add new details, new stories, new dates, new versions, doesn’t mean they’re not liars either, does it.
Anthony Joseph Urquizo: Right. It could go either way.
I mean, this really seems to be commonsense....doesn’t it?
Yet the last couple of decades have seen a significant proportion of people discounting the possibility of people lying about abuse.
Be they adults and/or minors.
Note also that there doesn't even need to be a high incidence of false allegations to occur in order for the possibility to exist in the first place.
Much less research demonstrating in some way the frequency of false allegations themselves.
