Performing
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 90

Performing Developmentally Appropriate and Legally Defensible Interviews of Children PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 40 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Performing Developmentally Appropriate and Legally Defensible Interviews of Children. Children's Suggestibilty. In most cases of CSA.

Download Presentation

Performing Developmentally Appropriate and Legally Defensible Interviews of Children

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Performing

Developmentally Appropriate

and

Legally Defensible

Interviews of Children


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Children's Suggestibilty


In most cases of csa

In most cases of CSA

  • Definitive medical evidence (i.e., semen, STDs, pregnancy) is lacking {Non-specific findings are present in about 50% of victims; but less than 20% have medical findings diagnostic of sexual abuse}

  • Physical evidence (from the crime scene) is absent

  • There are no witnesses apart from the perpetrator and the victim

  • It’s the child’s word against the adult’s!


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

The Attack on the Interviewer

  • Investigators are often criticized for “leading” children to make false allegations of sexual abuse.

  • According to the National Center on the Prosecution of Child Abuse, this is currently the most often used defense in child sexual abuse cases.

  • It is also one of the most effective defenses in CSA cases.


Do investigators lead children

DO INVESTIGATORS LEAD CHILDREN?


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Inappropriate leading and coercive interviewing of children has occurred in some highly publicized cases


The kelly michaels case

The Kelly Michaels Case

  • In 1988, a school teacher named Kelly Michaels was convicted of 115 counts of sexual abuse against twenty 3 to 5 year-old children

  • She was sentenced to 47 years in prison.


The kelly michaels case appealed

The Kelly Michaels Case-Appealed

  • The Appeals Court of New Jersey later reversed her conviction on the basis that the interviews of the victims were highly leading.

  • The Prosecution then appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.


The new jersey supreme court orders taint hearings

The New Jersey Supreme Court orders “taint hearings”

  • The N.J. Supreme Court upheld the reversal of conviction.

  • The Court found that the interviewing in this case was so flawed that, if the prosecution decided to retry the case, they must first hold a pre-trial “taint hearing” and show that despite improper interviewing techniques, the allegations of the child witnesses were sufficiently reliable to admit them as witnesses at trial.


Excerpt from transcript of a child interview in st v michaels

Excerpt from transcript of a child interview in St. v. Michaels

QDid Kelly have hair? [referring to privates]

ANah, I know ‘cause it’s grown ups . . . I know about that.

QSo I guess that means you saw her private parts, huh? Did Kelly ask the kids to look at her private parts, or to kiss her private part or . . .

AI didn’t really do that . . . I didn’t even do that.

QBut she made you.


Later in the same interview after the child has denied kissing kelly s private parts

Later in the same interview (after the child has denied kissing Kelly’s private parts)

QDid it smell good? (referring to Kelly’s privates)

AShhh

QHer private parts?

AI don’t know.

QDid it taste good? Did it taste like chocolate?

AHa, ha. No, I didn’t even do it . . .


Child interview continued

Child Interview (continued)

QYou Wee Care kids seem so scared of her.

AI wasn’t. I’m not even. . .

QBut while you were there, were you real scared?

AI don’t know.

QWhat was so frightening about her, what was so scary about her?

AI don’t know. Why don’t you ask her?


In some cases children were

In some cases, children were:

  • Told about the allegations of other children (contamination);

  • Not permitted to go to the bathroom or see their mother until they provided allegations (coercion);

  • Bribed with ice cream, etc. to provide allegations (bribery).


Are children suggestible

ARE CHILDREN “SUGGESTIBLE”?

YES. Some children are suggestible—at least under certain circumstances.


Conditions under which children are most likely to be suggestible

Conditions Under Which Children Are Most Likely To Be Suggestible

  • When leading questions are asked repeatedly—especially with very young children (3 and 4 year olds are most suggestible)

  • When children don’t understand that it’s important to tell the truth

  • When they think it’s okay to “guess.”

  • When they don’t think it’s okay to “correct” the interviewer’s mistakes


The new wave in suggestibility research

The “New Wave” in Suggestibility Research

  • Stephen Ceci (Cornell) and colleagues

  • Research designed to MAXIMIZE children’s suggestibility


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

The “Sam Stone” studyThe Impact of Stereotypes and Leading Questions and Guessingon Young Children’s Accounts


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

5 & 6 year-olds

40%

3 & 4 year-olds

72%

“SAM STONE” STUDYPercent of children assenting to false allegations by the conclusion of the experiment:


Why were these children so suggestible

Why were these children so suggestible?


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Researchers often have to go to great lengths to lead children to provide elaborate accounts of non-events

  • A singular misleading question does not typically elicit elaborate accounts of non-events—even from 3- and 4-year-olds.

  • “We really had to work hard to get children to provide detailed accounts of non-events” Stephen Ceci


Age was a factor when combined with repetitive leading questions guessing stereotyping

AGE was a factor (when combined with repetitive Leading Questions, Guessing, & Stereotyping)

  • The children in this study were 3 to 6 years old.

  • Very young children (especially 3 and 4-year-olds) are far more suggestible than older children and adults.

  • 10-11 year-olds are essentially equivalent to adults in suggestibility.


Highly leading questions were asked repeatedly

HIGHLY LEADING QUESTIONS were asked REPEATEDLY

  • Children were repeatedly asked highly leading questions for weeks

  • This sometimes happens in real-life cases


Stereotyping was a factor

“Stereotyping” was a factor

  • For several weeks, children were repeatedly told stories about Sam Stone being clumsy and as accidentally destroying things.

  • In real-life cases, children sometimes overhear one parent speaking badly about the other


Children were encouraged to guess

Children were encouraged to “GUESS”

When children said they did not know who ripped the book or got the teddy bear dirty, they were asked:

“Who might have ripped the book/gotten the teddy bear dirty?”


There was no emphasis on telling the truth

There was no emphasis on TELLING THE TRUTH

Kids are not required to tell the truth in all situations, i.e., playing games, telling stories, casual conversations

Kid’s don’t assume that telling the truth is important in all situations


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Young children who were not led or encouraged to guess during the Sam Stone study were quite accurate

  • “Of the 3- and 4-year-olds who were not exposed to repetitive and highly leading questions or stereotypes about the ‘offender,’ and who were not asked to “guess” answers, 90% were still accurate after three months.”

    Stephen Ceci


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

“Source Misattribution”

Misidentifying the Source of one’s MEMORY


Did it really happen or did i only hear about it

Did it really happen or did I only hear about it?

The “Mousetrap” Study


Source misattribution does occur under certain circumstances especially with 3 and 4 year olds

Source Misattribution does occur under certain circumstances-especially with 3 and 4 year olds


Research pertaining to anatomical dolls and other interview props

RESEARCH PERTAINING TO ANATOMICAL DOLLS AND OTHER INTERVIEW PROPS


Anatomical dolls and other props can serve as distracters

Anatomical Dolls and other props can serve as “Distracters”

  • This is especially true for children under 5 years old and for older children who tend to be distractible.


Dolls of any sort should not be used by very young children for demonstration purposes

Dolls of any sort should not be used by very young children for demonstration purposes

  • Children younger than approximately 3½ years old have not yet mastered “symbolic representation” and are therefore unable to use dolls and other props to accurately depict what they have experienced.

  • It is less risky to use them for body parts identification


Position of apa s task force on the use of anatomical dolls 1995

Position of APA’s Task Force on the use of Anatomical Dolls(1995)

  • Research to date mainly supports the use of AD Dolls as a communication or memory aid for children 5 years or older, albeit with a certain risk of contributing to some children’s errors if misleading questions are used along with the dolls.


Other media are less controversial and often as effective as anatomical dolls

Other Media Are Less Controversial and Often as Effective As Anatomical Dolls

  • Research to date has not shown that Anatomical Dolls are far superior to less controversial media for eliciting accurate accounts from children

  • Non-anatomical dolls

  • ‘Cookie-cutter’ and Stick-figure Drawings

  • Anatomical drawings (however, such drawings might provide sexually naïve children with new information, i.e., pubic hair)

  • Interviewers should always attempt to elicit a clear “verbal” description of sex acts


Similarities between the research and some real life cases

Similarities Between the Research and “some” real-life cases

  • Sometimes children are questioned for weeks or months in a highly leading fashion by well-intentioned but biased parents, therapists, investigators and others.

  • Sometimes children are influenced by what they overhear, i.e., angry parent talking to a friend about the other parent.

  • Sometimes (though probably rarely) parents or others deliberately influence children to make false sex abuse allegations.


Beware of the misapplication of suggestibility research to real life sex abuse cases

Beware of the Misapplication of Suggestibility Research to Real-life Sex Abuse Cases

  • Much of the suggestibility research has limited “ecological validity,” i.e., the extent to which the research mimics real-world situations

    • Sexual abuse differs in many ways from the type of events that researches have attempted to ‘lead’ children about, such as:

      • Sam Stone accidentally soiling a teddy bear or ripping a book

      • Getting one’s finger caught in a mousetrap


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

According to Ceci, it was not easy to lead children to make false allegations—even when the allegation did not relate to sexual abuse

  • It is probably far more difficult to lead children to make false allegations against someone they know and love (e.g., a parent) than it is to lead them to make such allegations against a stranger (e.g., Sam Stone)


Beware of the misapplication of suggestibility research to children of different ages

Beware of the Misapplication of Suggestibility Research to Children of Different Ages

  • Because there are significant AGE DIFEERENCES in suggestibility, it would be inappropriate to generalize research findings about preschoolers to older children

    • By the time children are 10-11 years old, they are essentially equivalent to adults with regard to suggestibility


Suggestibility is not a unidirectional phenomenon

Suggestibility is NOT a UNIDIRECTIONAL phenomenon

  • Children can be ‘led’ in more than one direction

  • Some non-abused children can be led to make false allegations of sexual abuse

  • It is also true that sexually abused children can be led to deny or minimize their abuse. In fact, this is probably far more common than non-abused children being led to falsely claim they were sexually abused


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Six Ways to

Reduce the Risk of

"Leading" Children

During Investigative Interviews


Six ways to reduce the risk of leading children during investigative interviews

Six Ways to Reduce the Risk of “Leading” Children During Investigative Interviews

  • Encourage ‘reality-based’ “truthful” reporting

  • Develop rapport

  • Avoid asking leading questions

  • Rely on open-ended questions as much as possible

  • Discourage guessing

  • Empower the child to disagree with you and to correct your mistakes


Excerpt from a competence hearing involving a young child

Excerpt from a Competence Hearing Involving a Young Child

Judge: What happens when you tell a lie?

Child: I could go to Hell.

Judge: Is that all?

Child: Isn’t that enough?


1 encourage children to tell the truth

#1: ENCOURAGE CHILDREN TO TELL THE TRUTH

  • Kids don’t necessarily assume that telling the truth is important during investigative interviews and they need to be told.

  • Use a developmentally appropriate means of assessing their understanding of “truth” and “lie”


Developmental considerations when questioning children about truth and lie

Developmental Considerations When Questioning Children About “Truth” and “Lie”

Even though kids as young as 3-years-old often recognize the difference between lying and telling the truth and recognize that lying is ‘bad,’ they often appear incompetent when they are questioned in a developmentally inappropriate fashion


Age related trends in children s competence to take the oath

AGE-RELATED TRENDS IN CHILDREN’S COMPETENCE TO TAKE THE OATH

Children under 9 or 10 are not good at:

explaining differences

defining terms

generating examples


Developmentally inappropriate truth lie questions for children under 9

Developmentally Inappropriate“Truth-Lie” questions for children under 9

  • “What’ is the difference between the truth and a lie?”

  • “What does it mean to tell the truth?”

  • “Can you give me an example of a lie/the truth?”


The lyon saywitz method of assessing young children s competence to take the oath

The Lyon & Saywitz Method of Assessing Young Children’s Competence to Take the Oath

  • Many children as young as 3 and 4 have been found to be competent when using this method.

  • Involves four “difference” tasks and four “morality” tasks


Introduction of the truth lie task

Introduction of the Truth-Lie Task

“I talk with lots of children. It’s important that they always tell me the truth.

So, before we begin, I want to make sure that you understand how important it is to tell the truth.”


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

TRUTH VS. LIE TASK

Here's a picture. Look at this animal--what kind of animal is this?

OK, that's a [child's label].

LISTEN to what these girls say about the [child's label]. One of them will tell a LIE and one will tell the TRUTH, and YOU'LL tell ME which girl tells the TRUTH.

(point to girl on the left) THIS girl looks at the [child's label] and says "IT'S a [child's label]."

(point to girl on the right) THIS girl looks at the [child's label] and says "IT'S a FISH."

Which girl told the TRUTH?


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

TRUTH VS. LIE TASK (2)

Here's another picture. Look at this food--what kind of food is this?

OK, that's a [child's label].

LISTEN to what these girls say about the [child's label]. One of them will tell a LIE, and one will tell the TRUTH.

(point to girl on the left) THIS girl looks at the [child's label] and says "IT'S an [child's label]."

(point to girl on the right) THIS girl looks at the [child's label] and says "IT'S a BANANA."

Which girl told the TRUTH?


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Here's a School Principal. She wants to know what happened to these boys.

Well, ONE of these boys is GONNA GET IN TROUBLE for what he says, and YOU'LL tell ME which boy is GONNA GET IN TROUBLE.

LOOK (point to left boy). This boy tells the TRUTH.

(point to right boy) This boy tells a LIE.

Which boy is GONNA GET IN TROUBLE?

Morality Task #1

MORALITY TASK


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

MORALITYTASK (2)

Here's a Lady who comes to visit these girls at home. She wants to know what happened to these girls.

Well, ONE of these girls is GONNA GET IN TROUBLE for what she says.

LOOK(point to left girl) This girl tells a LIE.

(point to girl on right) This girl tells the TRUTH.

Which girl is GONNA GET IN TROUBLE?


Example of lyon saywitz truth lie method used during a forensic interview

Example of Lyon & Saywitz Truth/Lie Method Used During a Forensic Interview


It is unlikely that a child would guess all the correct answers

It is unlikely that a child would ‘guess’ all the correct answers

  • The likelihood of the child guessing the correct answer to all 4 “difference” questions andall 4 “morality” questions is about 1 in 400. (The same as tossing a coin and getting “heads” 8 times in a row)


Elicit a promise to tell the truth

Elicit a Promise to Tell the Truth

  • Children are more likely to at least ‘try’ to tell the truth when they make a promise to do so


Advantages of the lyon saywitz method for assessing children s understanding of truth lie

Advantages of the Lyon & Saywitz Method for Assessing Children’s Understanding of “Truth-Lie”

  • Because it is developmentally appropriate for very young kids, it maximizes their likelihood of appearing competent

  • The visual images capture the attention of young kids

  • It has been tested on the front-lines in real-life child sexual abuse cases

  • It passes muster in court.


Practice session lyon saywitz truth lie tasks

Practice SessionLyon & Saywitz Truth-Lie Tasks


Website for color version of lyon saywitz s truth lie assessment

Website for color version of Lyon & Saywitz’s Truth-Lie Assessment

  • http://lawweb.usc.edu/users/tlyon/

    Download: “Qualifying children to take the oath”


2 develop rapport

#2 DEVELOP RAPPORT

  • Reduces suggestibility when child knows what’s expected.

  • Enhances trust and greater willingness to talk about distressing topics.

  • Reduces child’s anxiety, thereby enhancing cognitive performance, i.e., the child is more attentive and better able to access their memory.

  • It encourages more spontaneity and detail in the child’s responses.


What can interviewers do to put children at ease

What can interviewers do to put children at ease?


3 avoid asking leading questions

#3 Avoid Asking Leading Questions

  • A leading question suggests the desired or expected response

    • That must have hurt, huh?

    • Did he do that to you in your bedroom, too?

  • A highly leading question also tempts or pressures the child to agree with the suggested response.

    • Daddy touched your pee-pee, didn’t he?

    • Your Daddy would never touch you in a bad way, would he?


4 rely on open ended questions as much as possible

#4 RELY ON OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONSAS MUCH AS POSSIBLE


Examples of open ended questions

Examples of Open-Ended Questions

“Tell me all about . . . ”

“Tell me more about . . . ”

“What happened right before/right after . . .


Option posing questions

Option-Posing Questions

  • True/False and Multiple Choice Questions

  • Example. {Assume that the child previously told the interviewer that Roger touched her pee-pee—but she has never alleged that Roger did anything else to her}

    • Were you in your bedroom or in Roger’s room when Roger touched your pee-pee?

    • Did Roger lick your pee-pee, too?


Substituting open ended questions for option posing question

Substituting Open-ended Questions for Option-Posing Question

  • {Assume that the child previously told the interviewer that Roger touched her pee-pee—but she has never alleged that Roger did anything else to her}

    • You told me that Roger touched your pee-pee. Tell me all about that.

    • What happened right before/right after Robert touched your pee-pee?

    • Did Roger do anything else to you? (If so) Tell me all about that.

    • Did Roger do anything else to your pee-pee? (If so) Tell me all about that.


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Investigative interviewers tend to rely more on Option-Posing questions than on Open-ended questions

  • Approximately one-third of the questions asked by CSA investigators are option-posing questions

  • Only about 6% of CSA investigators’ questions are Open-ended invitations (i.e., “Tell me more about that”)

  • This is true even though children’s responses to Open-ended questions are generally far more accurate!


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Practice SessionOption-posing questions(yes/no, multiple choice) vs. Open-ended Questions“Tell me all about . . .”“Tell me more about . . .”“What happened right before/right after . . . ”


The practice narrative using open ended questions to elicit more detailed accounts

The “Practice Narrative”Using Open-ended Questions to Elicit More Detailed Accounts

  • In typical conversations with adults, young children provide minimal detail.

  • When sexually abused children were asked open-ended questions about neutral/pleasant topics early in the interview (before abuse-related questioning), they later provided 2½ times as much detail about their abuse.


The practice narrative

The Practice Narrative

  • “Tell me all about”:

    • What you like to do for fun

    • What you did today from the time you woke up until I came to see you today

    • Your birthday party (a recent holiday, etc)

  • Follow up with: “Tell me more about . . . ” “What happened right after . . . ?”


Open ended questions sensory focused

Open-ended Questions(Sensory focused)

  • Tell me everything you SAW

  • Tell me everything you HEARD


Children typically do not understand the goals of the investigative interview

CHILDREN TYPICALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GOALS OF THE INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW

The investigative interview is quite UNLIKE children’s normal ways of responding to adults.

When questioned by adults, children normally:

“Guess” responses to questions

Go along with adults and avoid correcting adults


5 discourage guessing

#5 DISCOURAGE GUESSING

  • Explain that, if you ask a question and the child does not know the answer, DON’T GUESS.

    “If I ask you a question and you don’t know the answer, please don’t guess! Just say “I don’t know.”

  • Role-play and provide praise and corrective feedback.

  • More effective with school-aged kids


Discouraging guessing

Discouraging Guessing

If I ask you a question and you don’t know the answer, just say, “I don’t know.” Okay?

So if I asked you, “Do I have a dog” what would you say?

“I don’t know.”

Right. You don’t know.

If child guesses, provide corrective feedback.


6 teach children to correct your mistakes

#6 TEACH CHILDREN TO CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES

  • WHEN CHILDREN SHOW THE ABILITY TO DISAGREE WITH AND CORRECT THE INTERVIEWER, THIS CAN DESTROY THE “LEADING INTERVIEW DEFENSE!”


Encouraging kids to correct your mistakes

Encouraging kids to correct your mistakes

  • Deliberately make errors unrelated to the suspected abuse and encourage child to correct you.

  • More effective for school-aged kids


Teaching kids to correct your mistakes

Teaching kids to correct your mistakes

  • If I get mixed up and make a mistake, I want you to correct me. I need you to help me get it right

  • So, if I said that your name is (incorrect name), what would you say?

  • That’s right.

  • So if I make a mistake, please tell me and help me get it right, okay?


Children are more likely to correct your mistakes if you appear to be uninformed about the facts

Children Are More Likely To Correct Your Mistakes If You Appear To Be Uninformed About The Facts

  • Convey a lack of knowledge about the facts of the case

    “I wasn’t there so I need you to tell me all about that.”

  • Use the “Colombo” approach

    “I’m mixed up.”


Children s desire to please the interviewer can be a liability or an asset

CHILDREN’S DESIRE TO “PLEASE” THE INTERVIEWER CAN BE A LIABILITY OR AN ASSET

  • When children know what the interviewer wants from them (e.g., the “ground rules”), their desire to please becomes an asset.


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

Strategies for

Abuse-Related Questioning


Transitioning to abuse related questioning

Transitioning to Abuse-Related Questioning

  • Always start with:

    • Tell me why you think I came to talk to you today.

    • “Because Bobby touched me”

    • “I talked to my teacher and she told me I should tell somebody”

    • “Billy’s been messin’ with me”

    • (Because of what Bobby did)


If child provides relevant information always follow up with an open ended question

If child provides relevant information, always follow up with an open-ended question

  • Tell me all about (whatever the child stated)


Performing developmentally appropriate and legally defensible interviews of children

If child does not provide relevant information to“Tell me why you think I came to talk to you today”ask Non-leading Focused Questions


Context focused questions re the setting of the suspected abuse

Context-Focused Questions(Re: the setting of the suspected abuse)

  • Tell me what happens:

    • When you go to school?

    • When you went to visit your Dad?

    • When Uncle Johnny baby-sits you?


People focused questions

People-Focused Questions

  • What does [name various people in the child’s life including the suspect] like to do with you?

  • Is there anything that [same person] likes to do that you don’t like?


Prior disclosure focused questions re the child s prior disclosure to others

Prior-Disclosure-Focused Questions(Re: the child’s prior disclosure to others)

  • I heard that something might have happened to you. Tell me all about that.

  • I heard that you talked to [teacher, mom] today. Tell me what you talked about

  • Did you tell [reporter] that someone was [vague description using child’s words, e.g., “messing with you”)? Tell me all about that.


Clarifying young children s terminology for their own body parts

Clarifying Young Children’s Terminology for Their Own Body Parts

  • Before abuse-related questioning, have the child name various body parts and functions on a “cookie cutter” drawing, but do not focus disproportionately on the genitals

    OR

  • After child makes an abuse-related allegation, e.g., “She licked my coochie,” have the child identify “coochie” by:

    • Pointing to his/her own body

    • Marking with an “X” or by circling this part on a ‘cookie-cutter’ drawing or a same-gender, anatomical drawing of a child


Clarifying young children s terminology for body parts on the suspect

Clarifying Young Children’s Terminology for Body Parts on the ‘Suspect’

  • After the child has made an abuse-related allegation involving a suspect’s body part, e.g., “Donald put his dingaling in my pooty,” have the child identify this part by:

    • Having the child mark this part on a cookie-cutter drawing with an “X” or by circling it

    • Having the child draw this part (if able)

    • (It is best to avoid using an anatomical drawing until after the child has described/drawn this part, e.g., “It was pink and there was red hair on it—and a brown spot in the middle.”


Seek corroboration

Seek Corroboration!

  • Many children of all ages are unwilling to discuss their possible sexual abuse—regardless of the forensic interviewer’s skill

  • Younger children in particularly can become confused about what really happened—especially if exposed to prior suggestions and leading—and are not able to provide reliable information

  • Oftentimes, the only way to arrive at the “truth” is by seeking corroboration, i.e., crime scene evidence, suspect interview, etc.


  • Login