I spent 20 years as a federal agent. If I personally were to have a choice of witnesses to a tragedy or crime to talk to, give me the child. Their view is simply what they have seen, normally unclouded by judgement, history, politics, and expectations. Certainly, intelligence bears into it and the developmental differences of the child. The child also needs to be of an age where they can remember and describe events, understanding the difference between the truth and a lie. But they often pick up on things that the adults miss even if, in and of itself, it might not be admissible in a legal setting. Sure the technical detail is not there and children can often mix reality with fantasy, but often the heart of what they experienced is ascertainable, containing details often lost to others.
A child's recollection is simple, not so many words, but sounds, smell, movement, direction, things others might have missed. With a parents hands hovering near, those movements we all know of protection, it will be asked if the child could give their remembrance, just as was done with any adults that were present, letting them make a statement of what they remember, to define the things already known. Sometimes their statements, made with simple words and hands, are startling in their detail; details that confirm the tangibles that are known at that time. Tangibles that can become evidence. Tangibles that often point to the POI.
