The twins in this case disclosed at what should have been a most joyous occasion for their family: the birth of a new daughter. But their father’s celebratory cigar triggered an outpouring about Bob the bus driver, who had taunted the boys with cigars and who abused them physically, sexually and psychologically. The boys disclosed all of that on Saturday night, their father called the police early on Sunday afternoon, and the boys gave statements first thing Monday morning. Each boy gave a detailed statement that later checked out with physical evidence and by the statements of other children, including two whom had moved to Florida.
What could these facts possibly have to do with "child suggestibility"?
Ms. Manning never provides a clear answer. Instead, through insinuation and
without the benefit of facts, she feigns sympathy for the W. family and then
all but accuses them of hatching a plan to brainwash their children the day
after the birth of their new daughter. She never says this directly, of course;
but she offers no other explanation that would involve "child suggestibility"
since there were no police or therapist interviews in the few waking hours that
elapsed between the initial disclosures on Saturday night and the interviews
on Monday morning.
Instead, Ms. Manning suggests that since we do not have a videotape the W. family’s
private moments that weekend that there is something nefarious about the statements
taken Monday morning. "A veil drops over this information [about what happened
that weekend]," Ms. Manning claims, ominously. "No information was
presented in court about what happened next," she continues. But once again,
the transcript proves Ms. Manning wrong. William W. testified about the cigars
and the initial disclosure at the hospital (tr. 770) and he could have been
asked anything else the defense wanted on this matter. There was no "veil"
of any sort. Indeed, Mrs. W also made reference in her testimony to these events
(tr. 1131-32); and again, the defense chose not to elicit additional facts about
this matter.
Aside from the cruel and unsupported insinuation that the family somehow decided
to brainwash their children into thinking they had been sexually abused while
their mother was recuperating from giving birth—this "explanation"
relies on a version of "child suggestibility" that is far potent than
has ever been shown in laboratory tests. Claiming that "child suggestibility"
could possibly explain this case requires one to posit massive and spontaneous
brainwashing of two kids in Massachusetts, followed by at least one in Florida.
The claim strains common sense.
Ms. Manning’s position certainly is not supported by the literature that
she cites in passing—the work of Ceci & Bruck. Their work is specifically
about cases with a host of elements that the Halsey case lacks. See e.g., Ceci
& Bruck, Child Witnesses: Translating Research into Policy, Social Policy
Report [Society for Research in Child Development], (Fall 1993), p. 2. In that
classic article, Ceci & Bruck discuss a host of elements that are lacking
in the Halsey case. This case does not involve preschoolers, there was not lapse
between initial disclosure and actual statements, there were no repeat interviews—the
case was built around the initial statement, and there was medical evidence
and other physical evidence corroborating the children’s testimony.
To pretend that "suggestibility" is an important element in the Halsey
case is to abandon any notion that the underlying facts matter. The facts of
this case provide no support for the suggestibility claim. Indeed, Ms. Manning
has misrepresented the facts in the course of trying to force the "child
suggestibility" template to this case. This "explanation" does
not merit serious consideration given the underlying facts of the case. Indeed,
to make this claim without facts and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary
is nothing short of callous and baseless.