- Email: [email protected]
ISSUE CONTINUED: Anatomically Correct Dolls: Should They be Used as the Basis for Expert Testimony?
DEBATE FORUM ISSUE CONTINUED:
Anatomically Correct Dolls: Should They be Used as the Basis for Expert Testimony? Background. Two decisions by the California Supreme Court of Appeal in the spring of 1987 have made it difficult to admit evidence based on anatomically correct doll interviews with children. Here, Dr. Yates and Dr. Terr continue their discussion of the arguments raised in the March 1988 Debate Forum.
AFFIRMATIVE CONTINUED: ALAYNE YATES, M.D.
NEGATIVE CONTINUED: LENORE TERR, M.D.
Dr. Terr and I agree on a number of issues: that information from observing the child's free play with the dolls is most likely to be accurate; that trained examiners are essential; that the anatomically correct dolls should be used in conjunction with other techniques; that safeguards and a standardized approach to doll usage must be developed; and that more studies are needed to define and predict the occurrence of falsely positive and falsely negative responses. In addition, I heartily concur with Dr. Terr in her assessment of the doll's sexual apparatus. The representations range from the idiosyncratic to the absurd. When the dolls first appeared, the male genitals were diminutive and the female genitals consisted of a single, all purpose, miniscule orifice as if the manufacturer were embarrassed and afraid ofoffending childish sensibilities. Now the genitals have become prodigous pronouncements of a social movement in which sex is accorded a central position. However, children need not be immediately exposed to the genitalia, as the dolls do come clothed and probably should be left clad so that the child may discover at his or her own pace. The main point of contention between Dr. Terr and myself is whether the dolls should continue to be employed, as their value has not been established. Certainly it is in the process of being established, judging by the number of child psychiatrists who employ the dolls and the studies that have been published. If we did not continue to use the dolls, this would indicate to the court that anatomical doll play was not generally accepted by the profession and therefore it could not be admissible as evidence in the court. The issue can only be resolved through the continued use, examination, and (if indicated) acceptance of the dolls. For the time being, evaluators may use the dolls but must not base their conclusions on the doll play alone. If the dolls are properly applied, they can help us to better advise the court.
Dr. Yates assumes such a balanced position on anatomically correct dolls in the courtroom that one wonders how strongly she takes the affirmative side. I will, however, dispute with her enthusiastic advocacy of having these dolls in our offices. Dr. Yates says we indicate a willingness when we put these dolls in our toy cabinets to talk "sex" with children. I believe that the dolls indicate not so much a willingness as a demand. A few years ago, the eminent psychiatrists Bernard Diamond and Martin Orne combatted the practice then prevalent in police departments to hypnotize potential witnesses. Diamond (1980) and Orne et at. (1985) argued that, once hypnotized, an individual could not be counted upon to tell the truth in court. The witness might instead relay suggestions that had been innocently or not-so-innocently planted during the hypnotic session. American courts eventually adopted, at least in the main, the Diamond and Orne positions to keep hypnotized witnesses out of the courtroom. What at first had been widely accepted as an investigative short cut eventually posed far too many shortcomings. Today, because of the anatomically correct doll, we are learning that another sort of short cut is coming into widespread use. The demand inherent in asking a child to play with these explicit toys makes the technique, like hypnosis, far too vulnerable to suggestion to be regularly used in the court. Changes of memory in storage, "plantings" of new information into the memory system, and exposures to new visual cues may occur while children play with anatomically correct dolls. The child, by playing, may be ruined as a witness, Last week, I received a transcript of an anatomically correct doll interview at which a 4-year-old, Viola, her mother, a protective service worker, and a policeman were present. Viola had originally alarmed her mother by telling her that Uncle Roger. the day-care director, had played "Dumbo's
Trunk" with her.
Accepted December 14, 1987. Dr. Yates is ChiefofChild Psychiatry. Professor of Psychiatry and Associate Professor of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. Dr. Terr is Clinical Professor ofPsychiatry, University ofCalifornia, San Francisco. Reprint requests to Dr. Yates, Dept. of Psychiatry, Arizona Health Science Center. Tucson, AZ 85724. or Dr. Terr, 450 Sutter st.. San Francisco, CA 94108. Commentary invited by the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 0890-8567/88/2703-0387$02.00/001988 by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Protective Service Worker (showing Viola an adult male naked doll): Do you know-did you read-the story of Dumbo? Remember the long trunk? Do you see anything down here that reminds you of Dumbo's trunk? Viola: (coughs) Protective Service Worker: Do you see anything here that reminds you of U nele Roger? Viola: No. That's not my blankie. 387
388
DEBATE FORUM
Mother: Oh, you want your blanket? Protective Service Worker: Does this look like Uncle Roger? Humm? Does it look like Uncle Roger? Viola: (Tries to look at the doll's face). Protective Service Worker: Oh-Iet's don 't look at the face. Do you see anything that looks like Uncle Roger here? (she points low on the doll's trunk). Hummmm? It's all right sweetheart . It's all right. Viola: Yeah. That's mine . (She grabs her blanket.)
hypnotic experience. I would rather take the chance of barring anatomically correct doll-inspired evidence from the courtroom-as hypnosis is barred-and, perhaps, oflosing a criminal by doing so, than the chance of allowing a " Viola" into court. Once children's testimony is spoiled by the ignorant, and perhaps unconscionable, use of the anatomically correct doll, the testimony may not only be useless, it may be dangerous.
Several months after Viola's doll interview was taped, the child testified, She was asked to describe Uncle Roger. Her description matched the anatomically correct doll. It did not correspond to Uncle Roger. The imagery inspired by anatomically correct dolls may be as vivid and as long-lasting as the imagery inspired by the
References Diamond. B. (1980). Inherent problems in the use of pre-trial hypnosis in a prospective witness. California Law Review. 68:313-349. Orne. M.• Soskis, D.. Dinges, D., Orne. E. C. & Tonry, M. (1985), Hypnotically Refreshed Testimony : Enhanced Memory or Tampering With Evidence? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice .
Erratum
In the September 1987 issue, a printer's error occurred in Table 2 (p. 679) of the article, "Neurobiology of Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity : Where Have We Come in 50 Years?" by Zametkin and Rapoport. Tranylcypromine was incorrectly cited as a MAOI B inhibitor. It inhibits MAOI A and B. Deprenyl was incorrectly cited as a MAOI A and B inhibitor. It inhibits only MAOI B. Page 680, paragraph two, under "Nonspecific Catecholamine Hypotheses," incorrectly states, "They all had immediate therapeutic clinical effects ...." The sentence should have stated : "Clorgyline and tranylcypromine had immediate therapeutic effects . .. ."
Anatomically Correct Dolls: Should They be Used as the Basis for Expert Testimony? Background. Two decisions by the California Supreme Court of Appeal in the spring of 1987 have made it difficult to admit evidence based on anatomically correct doll interviews with children. Here, Dr. Yates and Dr. Terr continue their discussion of the arguments raised in the March 1988 Debate Forum.
AFFIRMATIVE CONTINUED: ALAYNE YATES, M.D.
NEGATIVE CONTINUED: LENORE TERR, M.D.
Dr. Terr and I agree on a number of issues: that information from observing the child's free play with the dolls is most likely to be accurate; that trained examiners are essential; that the anatomically correct dolls should be used in conjunction with other techniques; that safeguards and a standardized approach to doll usage must be developed; and that more studies are needed to define and predict the occurrence of falsely positive and falsely negative responses. In addition, I heartily concur with Dr. Terr in her assessment of the doll's sexual apparatus. The representations range from the idiosyncratic to the absurd. When the dolls first appeared, the male genitals were diminutive and the female genitals consisted of a single, all purpose, miniscule orifice as if the manufacturer were embarrassed and afraid ofoffending childish sensibilities. Now the genitals have become prodigous pronouncements of a social movement in which sex is accorded a central position. However, children need not be immediately exposed to the genitalia, as the dolls do come clothed and probably should be left clad so that the child may discover at his or her own pace. The main point of contention between Dr. Terr and myself is whether the dolls should continue to be employed, as their value has not been established. Certainly it is in the process of being established, judging by the number of child psychiatrists who employ the dolls and the studies that have been published. If we did not continue to use the dolls, this would indicate to the court that anatomical doll play was not generally accepted by the profession and therefore it could not be admissible as evidence in the court. The issue can only be resolved through the continued use, examination, and (if indicated) acceptance of the dolls. For the time being, evaluators may use the dolls but must not base their conclusions on the doll play alone. If the dolls are properly applied, they can help us to better advise the court.
Dr. Yates assumes such a balanced position on anatomically correct dolls in the courtroom that one wonders how strongly she takes the affirmative side. I will, however, dispute with her enthusiastic advocacy of having these dolls in our offices. Dr. Yates says we indicate a willingness when we put these dolls in our toy cabinets to talk "sex" with children. I believe that the dolls indicate not so much a willingness as a demand. A few years ago, the eminent psychiatrists Bernard Diamond and Martin Orne combatted the practice then prevalent in police departments to hypnotize potential witnesses. Diamond (1980) and Orne et at. (1985) argued that, once hypnotized, an individual could not be counted upon to tell the truth in court. The witness might instead relay suggestions that had been innocently or not-so-innocently planted during the hypnotic session. American courts eventually adopted, at least in the main, the Diamond and Orne positions to keep hypnotized witnesses out of the courtroom. What at first had been widely accepted as an investigative short cut eventually posed far too many shortcomings. Today, because of the anatomically correct doll, we are learning that another sort of short cut is coming into widespread use. The demand inherent in asking a child to play with these explicit toys makes the technique, like hypnosis, far too vulnerable to suggestion to be regularly used in the court. Changes of memory in storage, "plantings" of new information into the memory system, and exposures to new visual cues may occur while children play with anatomically correct dolls. The child, by playing, may be ruined as a witness, Last week, I received a transcript of an anatomically correct doll interview at which a 4-year-old, Viola, her mother, a protective service worker, and a policeman were present. Viola had originally alarmed her mother by telling her that Uncle Roger. the day-care director, had played "Dumbo's
Trunk" with her.
Accepted December 14, 1987. Dr. Yates is ChiefofChild Psychiatry. Professor of Psychiatry and Associate Professor of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. Dr. Terr is Clinical Professor ofPsychiatry, University ofCalifornia, San Francisco. Reprint requests to Dr. Yates, Dept. of Psychiatry, Arizona Health Science Center. Tucson, AZ 85724. or Dr. Terr, 450 Sutter st.. San Francisco, CA 94108. Commentary invited by the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 0890-8567/88/2703-0387$02.00/001988 by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Protective Service Worker (showing Viola an adult male naked doll): Do you know-did you read-the story of Dumbo? Remember the long trunk? Do you see anything down here that reminds you of Dumbo's trunk? Viola: (coughs) Protective Service Worker: Do you see anything here that reminds you of U nele Roger? Viola: No. That's not my blankie. 387
388
DEBATE FORUM
Mother: Oh, you want your blanket? Protective Service Worker: Does this look like Uncle Roger? Humm? Does it look like Uncle Roger? Viola: (Tries to look at the doll's face). Protective Service Worker: Oh-Iet's don 't look at the face. Do you see anything that looks like Uncle Roger here? (she points low on the doll's trunk). Hummmm? It's all right sweetheart . It's all right. Viola: Yeah. That's mine . (She grabs her blanket.)
hypnotic experience. I would rather take the chance of barring anatomically correct doll-inspired evidence from the courtroom-as hypnosis is barred-and, perhaps, oflosing a criminal by doing so, than the chance of allowing a " Viola" into court. Once children's testimony is spoiled by the ignorant, and perhaps unconscionable, use of the anatomically correct doll, the testimony may not only be useless, it may be dangerous.
Several months after Viola's doll interview was taped, the child testified, She was asked to describe Uncle Roger. Her description matched the anatomically correct doll. It did not correspond to Uncle Roger. The imagery inspired by anatomically correct dolls may be as vivid and as long-lasting as the imagery inspired by the
References Diamond. B. (1980). Inherent problems in the use of pre-trial hypnosis in a prospective witness. California Law Review. 68:313-349. Orne. M.• Soskis, D.. Dinges, D., Orne. E. C. & Tonry, M. (1985), Hypnotically Refreshed Testimony : Enhanced Memory or Tampering With Evidence? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice .
Erratum
In the September 1987 issue, a printer's error occurred in Table 2 (p. 679) of the article, "Neurobiology of Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity : Where Have We Come in 50 Years?" by Zametkin and Rapoport. Tranylcypromine was incorrectly cited as a MAOI B inhibitor. It inhibits MAOI A and B. Deprenyl was incorrectly cited as a MAOI A and B inhibitor. It inhibits only MAOI B. Page 680, paragraph two, under "Nonspecific Catecholamine Hypotheses," incorrectly states, "They all had immediate therapeutic clinical effects ...." The sentence should have stated : "Clorgyline and tranylcypromine had immediate therapeutic effects . .. ."