Long time lurker, first time poster. I'm a social worker currently working in the field of child abuse and neglect, specifically at an agency that does forensic interviewing of children when there is an allegation of abuse/neglect, namely sexual abuse but also physical abuse and children who have witnessed violence. Childrens' advocacy centers (accredited through the National Children's Alliance) are common and I'm wondering whether the investigators in this case might have utilized their services in questioning classmates or other children believed to have pertinent information in this case if there is one in the area.
Our agency's policy is that we will attempt to interview a child beginning around the age of two. However, these interviews are often not very successful, children at this age may have knowledge but like other posters have said, they simply don't have the verbal ability to get it out. In terms of the way in which a child is questioned, this is HUGELY important...questions have to be non-leading, non-suggestive or the interview simply will not hold up in court. This is "best practice" nationwide and if it is not used cases are not likely to hold up in court. Issues of suggestibility and poor questioning were partially responsible for many of the "witch hunts" and false accusations that perpetuated the daycare sexual abuse cases and other hysteria in the 1980s. In terms of what constitutes leading or suggesting...we cannot even mention a name unless the child brings it up first regardless of what evidence/allegations we have.
Further, all children who are interviewed need to meet the criteria of "legal competence" if it is ever a possibility that they will have to testify or that their information will be used in court. This means that they need to demonstrate that they know the difference between the truth and a lie (typically tested through a simple question such as "If someone said this blue crayon was yellow would that be the truth or would that be a lie?"), agree to tell the truth, they need to demonstrate an ability to NOT guess at questions to which they don't know the answer (generally the interviewer explains that it is ok to say 'I don't know' and that we don't want the child to guess, and then tests this by asking "What's my dog's name?") and lastly, they need to be able to agree to correct the interviewer if she says something wrong (this is tested by the interviewer calling the child the wrong name or wrong age).
So, this is an awful lot for a child Baby K's age to have to do if LE is hopeful to get an legally useable and credible information about anything knowledge she may have.
