JUDAS PRIEST DRUMMER IN 'RAPE' PROBE
Lucy Panton
JUDAS Priest drummer Dave Holland has been arrested over claims that he carried out a sex attack on a wheelchair-bound teenager.
The flamboyant 54-year-old rock star was quizzed over allegations involving a 17-year-old disabled boy he was teaching to play the drums.
The boy, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, is understood to have a mental age of only eight or nine.
Holland was arrested by police at his home on the outskirts of Daventry village in Northamptonshire.
He was taken to Weston Flavell police station in Northampton and questioned about rape and gross indecency allegations.
He was later released on police bail pending further inquiries.
Heavy rock band Judas Priest was formed in Birmingham in the 1970s.
The group had several Top 20 hits in the 1980s with songs including Breaking the Law. Living after Midnight and British Steel.
In the early 1990s the controversial band was accused of inciting suicide by including "subliminal" messages on records but was cleared by a court in 1993.
The group reformed with new lead singer Tim Owens in 1996.
Holland, who was born and brought up in Northampton, now runs a drum kit shop in the town and is a familiar figure on the local music scene.
February 23, 2003
CORRECTION: FOLLOWING our January 26 article about former Judas Priest drummer, Dave Holland, being arrested on suspicion of a sex attack, we have been asked to make it clear that he left Judas Priest 14 years ago and has had no connection with the band since then.
*****
JUDAS PRIEST rock drummer Dave Holland appeared in court yesterday accused of carrying out a sex attack on a wheelchair-bound teenage boy.
He is charged with indecent assault and raping the teenager, who is believed to have a mental age of eight or nine.
Holland and assault co-accused Spiros Laoutaris, both of Northants, will appear at Northampton Crown Court on May 20.
*****
A FORMER drummer with Birmingham rock band Judas Priest was going on trial today accused of sexual assaults against a 17year-old boy.
David Holland faces one charge of attempted rape and four of indecent assault on the teenager.
All are said to have taken place between July and December 2002.Holland, 55, of Stoke Bruerne, Northants, denied all the charges when he last appeared in court in Leicester in August.
He was granted unconditional bail to appear at Northampton Crown Court today.
Co-accused Spiros Laoutaris, 22, of Kings Heath, Northampton, faces four separate indecent assault charges on the same teenager over the same period.
Holland joined Judas Priest in 1979 and played with the band for the next 10 years in their heyday.
The Brummie rockers reached number 12 in the British charts in 1980 with two records, Living After Midnight and Breaking TheLaw. They had several other top 20 hits but never reached the top 10 in the UK. Holland is still involved in the local music scene.
*****
Andrew Barrow
A former drummer with rock band Judas Priest sexually assaulted a teenage boy a number of times while the special needs youngster was visiting his house for drum lessons, a court was told today.
Drummer David Holland faces one charge of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault on the teenager.
All of the alleged offences are said to have taken place between June and December 2002.
Holland's co-accused, Spiros Laouitaris, 22, faces four separate indecent assault charges on the same teenager.
Holland, 55, of The Green, Stoke Bruerne, Northants, and Laouitaris, of Bourne Crescent, Kings Heath, Northampton, deny all the charges.
Opening the prosecution case at Northampton Crown Court today, Maria Savvides told the jury of seven women and five man that the accusations came to light in December 2002 when the teenager, who is now 18 but cannot be named for legal reasons, told his parents in a letter of his abuse while staying at Holland's house for drum lessons.
Miss Savvides said that the boy's parents had encouraged the drum lessons in order to improve their son's self-esteem.
Because of the growing relationship between teacher and pupil, they had allowed their son to stay over at his home on a number of occasions.
Counsel added: "It (the letter) revealed that things were happening at his drum teacher's house that shouldn't have been happening.
"In about the spring of 2002 he started to visit the defendant's home in Stoke Bruerne. What (the teenager) says is that he went to his teacher's house.
"He was asked to go upstairs and take a shower. He came downstairs and was forced to participate in oral sex. The defendant performed oral sex on him and the defendant forced (the teenager) to perform oral sex on him."
The teenager gave a video statement to police in which he outlined the assaults and the attempted rape during the seven months he visited Holland's house. He also alleged that Laouitaris joined in assaults and forced him to perform assaults during the same period.
The jury was being shown the video evidence today.
The trial, before Judge Charles Wide QC, heard that the teenager had suffered problems at school from an early age and took part in a number of activities to improve his learning difficulties.
Miss Savvides said: "The complainant is a young lad who from an early age had experienced problems and learning difficulties. His parents were at great pains to find activities that would help him with his own self esteem. Drum lessons was something he could do and that he was happy with."
Holland joined Judas Priest in 1979 and played with them for the next 10 years in their heyday.
The Birmingham-based band reached Number 12 in the British charts in 1980 with two records, Living After Midnight and Breaking The Law.
They had several other Top 20 hits but never reached the Top 10 in the UK.
Holland was born in Northampton and is still involved in the local music scene.
She told the jury: "He didn't allow it to happen. You will hear about him moving away and finding a warm corner in the room."
Holland, wearing a green shirt and brown leather jacket, sat alongside Laouitaris in the dock as the jury was later shown the teenager's video statement recorded on December 17, 2002.
Referring to the rock drummer as "Dave", the boy described how the assaults started at Holland's cottage some six months after he began having lessons, initially at a drum shop in the centre of Northampton.
"The first time I went round to his cottage, it was right at the start of the summer holidays," the teenager said.
"He invited me."
The teenager said he felt "uncomfortable" when Holland tried to perform a sex act on him. He added: "I don't know if he does it to anyone else but he does it to me."
The trial was adjourned until tomorrow.
*****
Andrew Barrow
A teenage boy with learning difficulties became aggressive towards his parents and scared to be alone after he was sexually abused by a former rock drummer, a court heard today.
David Holland, who once played with rock band Judas Priest, is accused of sexually assaulting the 17-year-old a number of times while the special needs youngster was visiting his house for drum lessons.
Holland faces one charge of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault on the teenager. All the alleged offences are said to have taken place between June and December 2002.
Holland's co-accused, Spiros Laouitaris, 22, faces four separate indecent assault charges on the same teenager.
Holland, 55, of The Green, Stoke Bruerne, Northants, and Laouitaris, of Bourne Crescent, Kings Heath, Northampton, deny all the charges.
The court has heard that the teenager's parents organised the music lessons to try to boost his self esteem.
But in evidence today, the boy's father said his son's manner changed after he started visiting Holland's cottage in the Northamptonshire village.
"For us it was a very emotional time," he said. "He was very disturbed, really aggressive and mixed up. We noticed it.
"During the time he was going to Dave's we noted he was getting blotches on his arms, towards the end, the last few lessons.
"About the last time he went to Dave's he started to have baths every day. He doesn't like having baths.
"He didn't want us to go out. One of us had to stay with him. We would sit up on his bed and watch videos. He just clung to us, he was really disturbed."
More recently, after leaving college, his parents had found him a Saturday job from which he went full-time.
"He has been able to feel better and achieve, so he has come on a long way in this last year," the father said.
The jury of seven women and five men at Northampton Crown Court heard that the alleged offences came to light in December 2002 when the teenager, who is now 18 but who cannot be named for legal reasons, told his parents in a letter of the abuse while staying at Holland's house for drum lessons.
In a video statement to police he outlined the assaults and the attempted rape during the seven months he visited Holland's house.
He also alleged that Laouitaris joined in assaults and forced him to perform sex acts during the same period.
Maria Savvides, prosecuting, told the jury on Thursday that the boy had managed to stop Holland from raping him but had been abused in other ways, with the drummer using a sex toy on him on one occasion.
Holland joined Birmingham-based Judas Priest in 1979 and played with them for the next 10 years during which they had several Top 20 hits but never reached the Top 10.
The hearing was adjourned until Monday.
*****
Andrew Barrow
A former rock star accused of attempting to rape a special needs youngster while giving drum lessons at his rural home denied the accusations today, saying the charges were "ridiculous".
David Holland, the former drummer of rock band Judas Priest, faces one charge of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault on the teenage boy. All the alleged offences are said to have taken place between June and December 2002.
Holland's co-accused, Spiros Laouitaris, 22, faces four separate indecent assault charges on the same teenager.
Holland, 55, of The Green, Stoke Bruerne, Northants, and Laouitaris, of Bourne Crescent, Kings Heath, Northampton, deny all the charges.
Giving evidence at Northampton Crown Court today, Holland said he had formed a "friendship" with the teenager, who is aged 18 but cannot be named for legal reasons, and had invited him to his house on several occasions. The drummer stressed that no sexual advances were made towards the teenager.
Under examination by defence counsel Michael Joyce, Holland said the teenager was allowed to drink and smoke at his house and watch videos. He admitted owning pornographic films and sex toys but denied he had ever shown them to the boy.
Asked by Mr Joyce if he had ever shown the boy pornographic films or a vibrator he kept in the house, Holland replied: "No sir, I never did."
He said he had never touched the boy's genitals or had sexual intercourse with him, and added: "I have never, ever, had sexual intercourse with another man. It is not something that interests me at all."
He admitted that he thought the teenager was bisexual and had told him of his own bisexual background. But he denied having any sexual motives for his friendship with the boy.
Holland said: "He was aware that I am bisexual. I'm the kind of person that if I feel somebody ought to know, then I will tell them. I believed that he was of the same persuasion as myself.
"A lot of people will talk about things that they won't tell their parents or even their friends about. He was very fond of me. The same as I was of him. He would even tell me I was his best friend. He would tell me that he loved me. It wasn't a sexual thing, it was affection.
"There might have been the odd hug or something like that. I know it is politically incorrect nowadays but kids like to be shown a bit of affection.
"He suggested that when he was 18 he could come and live with me. I know what I should have said. I should have told him flat 'no, that is never going to happen', but I don't like upsetting people's feelings. I tried to talk to him in a way that would suggest that it was not something that would be acceptable to me, without saying an outright 'no'."
Maria Savvides, prosecuting, told the court that the alleged abuse was revealed in a letter written by the teenager to his parents on December 14, 2002.
Miss Savvides told the court: "In about the spring of 2002 he started to visit the defendant's home in Stoke Bruerne. What he says is that he went to his teacher's house. He was asked to go upstairs and take a shower. He came downstairs and was forced to participate in oral sex.
"The defendant performed oral sex on him and the defendant forced (the teenager) to perform oral sex on him."
Giving evidence today, Holland denied having any sexual desires towards the youngster. He said he asked the teenager to take a shower one afternoon as he smelled strongly of alcohol and tobacco.
Mr Joyce asked: "Did you ask him to go and take a shower?"
"On one occasion," replied Holland. "He was left in the house by himself. He'd been drinking heavily, smoking heavily and he had made a bit of a mess of himself and he smelled."
"Did you ever see him naked?"
"No," he said.
In cross examination, Nicola Cafferkey, defence counsel for Laouitaris, alleged that Holland had arranged the visits of Laouitaris and the teenager in order to instigate sex between the three.
Holland said: "Don't be ridiculous, madam, I resent the innuendo."
Miss Savvides said that the boy's parents had encouraged the drum lessons in order to improve their son's self-esteem and, because of the growing relationship between teacher and pupil, had allowed their son to stay over at his home on a number of occasions.
The trial, before Judge Charles Wide QC, has heard that the teenager had suffered problems at school from an early age and took part in a number of activities to improve his learning difficulties.
Holland joined Judas Priest in 1979 and played with them for the next 10 years in their heyday.
The Birmingham-based band reached Number 12 in the British charts in 1980 with two records, Living After Midnight and Breaking The Law. They had several other Top 20 hits but never reached the Top 10 in the UK.
Holland was born in Northampton and is still involved in the local music scene.
The trial was adjourned until tomorrow
*****
Andrew Barrow
A jury trying a former rock star accused of attempting to rape a special needs youngster while giving drum lessons has been sent home for the night after failing to agree a verdict.
David Holland, the former drummer of rock band Judas Priest, faces one charge of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault on the 17-year-old boy. All of the alleged offences are said to have taken place at the drummer's rural home between June and December 2002.
Holland's co-accused, Spiros Laouitaris, 22, faces three separate indecent assault charges on the same teenager. He was acquitted of a fourth indecent assault charge on the directions of Judge Charles Wide QC, who said there had been insufficient evidence.
Holland, 55, of The Green, Stoke Bruerne, Northants, and Laouitaris, of Bourne Crescent, Kings Heath, Northampton, deny all the charges.
In summing up the case, Judge Wide told the jury of seven women and five men to put aside any feelings about the bisexual rock star's sex life.
He said: "This is not a court of morals and not a place for emotions."
Northampton Crown Court has heard that the alleged assaults began in spring 2002 when the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, began staying over at Holland's cottage. It was said that the rock drummer and Laouitaris forced the teenager to perform sex acts upon them and then assaulted the boy.
Prosecution counsel Maria Savvides told the jury of seven women and five men that the alleged abuse was revealed in a letter written by the teenager to his parents on December 14, 2002, which detailed the allegations of abuse.
Holland denies the charges and any sexual desires towards the youngster - calling the charges "ridiculous".
In closing, his barrister, Michael Joyce, said Holland was a man who had made a positive contribution to village life in Stoke Bruerne and to the music industry.
But Laouitaris's barrister, Nicola Cafferkey, sought to apportion blame on Holland saying that he had taken advantage of two people with learning difficulties.
She said: "When Holland, a man in his 50s, met Spiros, who was 20 or 21, immediately he tells you he realises that Spiros was 'below par'."
The jury was ordered to continue its deliberations tomorrow.
*****
Rock drummer David Holland was convicted today of attempting to rape a special needs teenager while giving him drum lessons at his rural home.
Holland, the former drummer of rock band Judas Priest, was convicted of one charge of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault on the 17-year-old at Holland's rural Northamptonshire home between June and December 2002.
Holland, 55, of The Green, Stoke Bruerne, Northants, was convicted on majority verdicts by the jury of seven women and five men at Northampton Crown Court.
His co-accused, Sprios Laouitaris, 22, of Bourne Crescent, Kings Heath, Northampton, was earlier acquitted of three separate indecent assault charges on the same teenager.
He was cleared of a fourth indecent assault charge yesterday on the directions of Judge Charles Wide QC, who said there had been insufficient evidence.
Remanding the former rock star into custody, Judge Charles Wide QC ordered a pre-sentence report on Holland, saying: "I in particular would be interested in an assessment of the risk Mr Holland poses to adolescent young men. It is a matter of considerable concern to me."
Northampton Crown Court has heard that the assaults began in spring 2002 when the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, began staying over at Holland's cottage. The rock drummer forced the teenager to perform sex acts upon him before himself assaulting the boy.
Prosecution counsel Maria Savvides told the court that the accusations came to light in December 2002 when the teenager, who is now 18 but cannot be named for legal reasons, told his parents in a letter of his abuse while staying at Holland's house for drum lessons.
Counsel added: "It (the letter) revealed that things were happening at his drum teacher's house that shouldn't have been happening.
"In about the spring of 2002 he started to visit the defendant's home in Stoke Bruerne.
"What he says is that he went to his teacher's house. He was asked to go upstairs and take a shower. He came downstairs and was forced to participate in oral sex.
"The defendant performed oral sex on him and the defendant forced (the teenager) to perform oral sex on him."
In video evidence played to the court, the teenager described how Holland had tried to rape him but he had run away to "a warm corner of the cottage" and Holland had halted his advances.
Despite managing to stop Holland from raping him in his house, he said he had been abused in other ways, with the drummer using a sex toy on him on one occasion.
Referring to the rock drummer as "Dave", the boy described how the assaults started at Holland's cottage some six months after he began having lessons, initially at a drum shop in the centre of Northampton.
The first time I went round to his cottage, said the teenager. "It was right at the start of the summer holidays. He invited me."
The teenager said he felt "uncomfortable" when Holland tried to perform a sex act on him. He added: "I don't know if he does it to anyone else but he does it to me."
Miss Savvides said that the boy's parents had encouraged the drum lessons in order to improve their son's self-esteem and, because of the growing relationship between teacher and pupil, had allowed their son to stay over at his home on a number of occasions.
The teenager had suffered problems at school from an early age and took part in a number of activities to improve his learning difficulties.
Miss Savvides said: "The complainant is a young lad who from an early age had experienced problems and learning difficulties.
"His parents were at great pains to find activities that would help him with his own self-esteem. Drum lessons was something he could do and that he was happy with."
Holland joined Judas Priest in 1979 and played with them for the next 10 years in their heyday.
The Birmingham-based band reached Number 12 in the British charts in 1980 with two records, Living After Midnight and Breaking The Law. They had several other Top 20 hits but never reached the Top 10 in the UK.
The boy's father told the court how the teenager became aggressive towards his parents and scared to be alone after he was sexually abused by Holland.
Despite organising the lessons in order to boost his self esteem, the boy's father told how his son's manner changed after the abuse started at Holland's cottage in the Northamptonshire village.
"For us it was a very emotional time," he said. "He was very disturbed, really aggressive and mixed up. We noticed it.
"During the time he was going to Dave's we noted he was getting blotches on his arms, towards the end, the last few lessons. About the last time he went to Dave's he started to have baths every day. He doesn't like having baths.
"He didn't want us to go out. One of us had to stay with him. We would sit up on his bed and watch videos. He just clung to us, he was really disturbed."
Laouitaris's barrister, Nicola Cafferkey, blamed Holland for the attacks saying that he had taken advantage of two people with learning difficulties.
She said: "When Holland, a man in his 50s, met Spiros, who was 20 or 21, immediately he tells you he realises that Spiros was 'below par'."
Speaking outside the court, Mr Laouitaris said he was relieved that the case was over, saying: "There has been some justice but it has taken too long."
The 23-year-old Greek-Cypriot began texting family members with the message "I'm free".
Laouitaris's father Christopher added: "When it first happened and we found out we asked him to tell the truth. It was very uncomfortable for him."
Holland always claimed the charges were "ridiculous", and said that he had been just a friend to the boy.
Several other young music students appeared at Northampton Crown Court to give statements about his character.
The defendant said he had become a close friend to a number of his pupils, who had told him secrets in confidence, but said the teenager had become further attached, even asking if he could live with Holland once he had turned 18.
He admitted that he thought the teenager was also bisexual and had told him of his own sexual background. But he denied having any sexual motives for his friendship with the boy.
Holland told the court: "He was aware that I am bisexual. I'm the kind of person that if I feel somebody ought to know then I will tell them. I believed that he was of the same persuasion as myself.
"A lot of people will talk about things that they won't tell their parents or even their friends about. He was very fond of me. The same as I was of him. He would even tell me I was his best friend. He would tell me that he loved me. It wasn't a sexual thing, it was affection.
"There might have been the odd hug or something like that. I know it is politically incorrect nowadays but kids like to be shown a bit of affection."
Holland admitted that he was bisexual and had participated in gay sex acts but had never had full sex with another man. He owned and used pornographic videos and sex toys but denied ever showing them to the teenager or using them on him.
*****
Rockers TONY IOMMI and GLENN HUGHES were forced to call in TEARS FOR FEARS drummer JIMMY COPLEY to revamp the beats on their lost DEP SESSIONS because they no longer wanted to be associated with a sex offender.
Jailed former JUDAS PRIEST star DAVE HOLLAND was the guest drummer on the 1996 project, which was locked away in one of Iommi's vaults until a pal stumbled across them and urged the BLACK SABBATH guitarist to consider releasing them.
But Iommi didn't want to put the album out with Holland's name attached to the project after the drummer was jailed in 2003 for attempting to rape a special-needs youth.
Iommi says, "The association he's got at the moment isn't something we wanted to be involved in... The recording wasn't that good."
*****
I followed the case of Dave Holland at the time as I was studying for my first Masters in Criminology. Now I am studying for a Masters in Forensic Psychology and the case had been brought to my attention again.
Holland is due out in 2012. He still denies the charges and claims he is writing a tell-all autobiography about how he was framed as he wants to speak out for all of the wrongfully-convicted sex offenders.
Really, Dave?
Really?
I believe he is guilty; there is no reason for him to have been made an example of and if the evidence was not there to convict, he would not have been in prison since 2004. An innocent man would also have won on appeal, don't you think?
People have a very negative view of children who claim to be sexually abused and the vast majority of cases do not even make it to court due to lack of evidence. There was enough evidence to get a conviction in this case.
I think the problem with Dave is he believes he did nothing wrong. Many sex offenders think like that. My piece on rape covers the victim blaming/guilt transference exhibited by many abusers. That can be found via a blog search.
I have included a piece I wrote a while ago about inaccuracies in witness testimony due to inappropriate questioning with a special focus on children. It is not perfect (I got a high pass but a little effort would have got me a distinction) but it shows where research is in relation to child abuse cases right now. I don't think people realise how reliable the criminal justice system is in relation to sex abuse. Young victims (referred to as witnesses as per the current stance in Forensic Psychology) are much more reliable than the general public believes and a claim of abuse cannot just be dismissed without proper investigation. Perhaps Dave ought to look at the evidence himself.
(It goes without saying that this was a piece I wrote for my Masters and while I have completed that module, this is all of my own work and you cannot reproduce it in any way, shape or form).
Witnesses are vital in criminal cases as they provide insight into what happened and their testimony can result in convictions. Witnesses can, however, give inaccurate information and so cannot be completely relied upon (Castelli et al, 2009). There are numerous reasons for these errors but the most focused upon is the idea that the methods used during the questioning process create false memories or misleading reports. Many issues have to be explored to understand exactly how far witnesses can be lead during the interview process (Leichtman and Ceci, 2009). There are other issues that need to be considered before it can be decided if this really is the case, though. Special consideration should be given to the case of children as more cases with children as the only witnesses are coming to the fore and so they are becoming central to the criminal justice system. Witnesses can lie in order to meet their own objectives and though research has shown that children can maintain a lie, even under direct questioning, when advised to do so by an adult (Quas et al, 2007), this is rather rare. Instead, most issues that result in inaccurate witness reports are much less deliberate.
Human memory can be open to errors (Castelli et al, 2009). There can be issues at the encoding, retention and questioning phases that can have a significant affect on what is remembered and reported. Memory can become distorted in the initially encoding stage for a variety of reasons (Castelli et al, 2009). Witnesses are able to remember events better if it is something that is familiar to them, such as something that happens regularly. With children in abuse situations, repeated events will improve their memory recall but they may have problems differentiating incidents from each other and may confuse details (Castelli et al, 2009). In highly stressful events, the witness tends to be able to encode the central details but not peripheral information (Castelli et al, 2009; Davis et al, 2009). While those witnesses who can remember lots of detail tend to be believed more, it does not mean that those who remember only the main facts are any less reliable (Castelli et al, 2009). Should a witness only observe part of an event, they may use their own knowledge and experiences to create a full memory and fill in any gaps in the knowledge available, such as if a witness see a suspect holding something, they may assume it is a weapon (Castelli et al, 2009). While this can be useful in that information is encoded quickly and remembered clearly, the risk of false memories being created is great and can have an effect on the reliability of the witness (Castelli et al, 2009).
Research has shown that a witness is likely to forget most details soon after the event but then normally manages to retain certain information, as long as they are able to retrieve it later on (Castelli et al, 2009). Witnesses can lose details about events or they can become altered. Over time, the memory can also be affected by either media input or what other witnesses or friends or family members say (Castelli et al, 2009; Ost et al, 2009). Length of time between the event witnessed and the interview process does have an effect on memory retention though it is also believed that if a witness is able to really focus on an event, they will remember the details no matter how much time passes before retrieval occurs (Castelli et al, 2009). There is little evidence that children are likely to forget details over time (Castelli et al, 2009). Children can, however, be affected by the behaviour of those around them more than adults, such as negative influence from parents or other adults can create false or distorted memories during retention (Castelli et al, 2009).
It is believed that during the retrieval process is when most errors are likely to occur (Castelli et al, 2009). Many times, a witness is unable to report what they have seen or experienced due to retrieval issues (Castelli et al, 2009). This can include problems like the style of questioning or a lack of appropriate retrieval cues to encourage witnesses to report the facts. The questioning phase is important as it is at this point where the event is recalled by the witness and the way this takes place can have an impact on the entire case. It is believed that either misleading or suggestive questioning can cause witnesses to give false statements (Melnyk et al, 2009). Various things can happen during questioning that will influence the information reported by the witness. It is preferable to interview the witness as soon as possible but even if there is a delay in this, such as cases of child abuse discovered many years after the initial event, witnesses are still able to accurately report on what happened to them (Castelli et al, 2009).
The issue of misleading or suggestive questioning has been of concern for years, due to high-profile cases where convictions were later overturned. Misleading questions can include asking direct questions where details are given to the witness that may not be true and because the person questioning is in a position of authority, most witnesses think it would be natural to just accept what they are saying as correct (Castelli et al, 2009). The significance of leading and suggestive questioning increases the longer after an event occurs. When an incident has just happened, witnesses are more likely to trust their own judgement and not automatically accept what is said to them but over time, witnesses are more inclined to include the information given to them by others as part of their own testimony (Castelli et al, 2009). The language used is important as the use of strong verbs can influence witnesses (Castelli et al, 2009). The status of the interviewer can influence the creation of false memories as the witness may believe that the authority figure must be correct and they either doubt themselves or fear disagreeing with the interviewer and so change their own testimony to fit in with what the interviewer expects (Quas et al, 2007; Castelli et al, 2009).
Research has shown that very young children are more likely to be open to suggestibility while older children perform on a more similar level to adults (Paz-Alonso and Goodman, 2009). A large problem with children is that they know much more than they are actually able to express so without the correct type of questioning, they have no way of sharing their knowledge (Castelli et al, 2009). Children can struggle when being questioned as consideration is sometimes not given to their limited language skills and so children can either not understand what is being asked of them or have no way of responding correctly as they just lack the vocabulary with which to do so (Castelli et al, 2009). While suggestive and misleading questions are a concern with children, it largely only has an influence over minor details that have little relevance to the event being reported with children being much more difficult to guide in their statements than people generally believe (Castelli et al, 2009). It is only in cases where the child has a very weak recall or grasp on the important event that central details can be shaped by the questioner (Castelli et al, 2009).
Some interview aspects used with children can actually make things worse. One practice used during the interview process with children is the use of dolls. These are favoured by some who feel they help children express themselves better but research suggests that they actually cause more problems as children are unable to relate their own experiences to the dolls and so it causes more confusion of the facts (Castelli et al, 2009; Melnyk et al, 2009). While the use of dolls is favoured as it is believed to allow children to express things they cannot normally communicate, research has actually proven that the use of dolls causes false reports of abuse as children cannot always relate to the doll themselves and so they do not really understand what they are expressing and can actually give completely misleading information (Melnyk et al, 2009).
The interview can seem like a hostile process to a young witness and that can cause them to be intimidated by the interviewer and therefore be more eager to satisfy their perceived expectations (Melnyk et al, 2009). Research has shown that children are less open to suggestibility if the interview is conducted in a supportive, positive way (Melnyk et al, 2009). This does not always happen, though, due to interviewer bias. Interviewers can show a lack of patience when dealing with young witnesses and so are more likely to ask direct questions in order to quickly obtain the details they need to move forward. This type of questioning is unfair to the child as they can feel pressure to say what they think the interviewer wants to hear instead of the truth and it can leave them disillusioned with the system as true justice is not found. An investigator may have already started to make assumptions about the case and so they have their own direction in which to take the interview. Interview bias is a concern as it is possible for an interviewer to allow their own opinions and objectives to contaminate the interview process, sometimes even subconsciously (Brigham et al, 2009; Melnyk et al, 2009; Valentine, 2009). The concerns can range from asking leading questions to repeating the same question to the point that the witness begins to believe the answer they have given is not acceptable and so they change it to suit the interviewer. This is especially significant with child witnesses who may not be sure of themselves enough to understand why they would be repeatedly asked the same question and so begin to doubt themselves (Leichtman and Ceci, 2009; Melnyk et al, 2009).
The process of repeated interviewing can also show bias on the part of investigators as they are constantly trying to find the exact information they want in order to take the investigation in the direction they believe it should be going (Quas et al, 2007; Melnyk et al, 2009). Research by Goodman and Quas (2008), however, suggests that children are able to resist suggestibility and interviewer bias in repeated interviews if they are interviewed soon after the event when they are able to realise that the information they hold is actually accurate. The authors admit that there is still conflicting evidence and so further research is required before anything substantial can be decided (Goodman and Quas, 2008). Repeated interviewing can be useful with children as it allows them to think about what happened in great detail and therefore report more information than they could have just one question session but this can also lead to a lot of inaccurate reporting as a child may think they keep being asked the same question or type of question repeatedly because their initial answers were wrong and so they can start to alter their reports in the hope that what they later say will be more acceptable to the interviewer (Castelli et al, 2009). Direct questioning is not an entirely bad thing and can be useful to obtain specific information but care should always be taken to ensure that the witness is not being unduly pressured or guided by the interviewer as that can be detrimental to the case.
The issue of false memories created during the questioning process with children is something that the media like to focus on, especially after the number of high-profile cases in which convictions were over-turned due to false testimony by child witnesses. It has been established that children can suffer from false memories but only if certain criteria are reached, such as the event being suggested to them is actually plausible and they believe that it could possibly have happened to them (Ost et al, 2009). In their 2008 study, Ost et al (2009) explored the suggestibility of adults concerning an invented piece of video footage and discovered high rates of suggestibility amongst adults but this was in relation to an event that had extensive media coverage but they also established that those most likely to report false memories were more prone to fantasies and so they could have just imagined it anyway (Ost et al, 2009). Children are less likely to accept something completely new but if minor details of an event they are already aware of are altered slightly, they are more likely to include this in their own reports (Castelli et al, 2009). Adults are also able to have this problem of believing created memories but it is less likely and so not as great a concern.
Children are able to give accurate statements when allowed to. In their 2000 study of child sexual abuse victims in New Zealand, Bidrose and Goodman established that children provide the most accurate information when they are not excessively interviewed and when they are allowed to use free-narrative without too much direct questioning (Bidrose and Goodman, 2009). Children are not as open to suggestibility as people believe (Castelli et al, 2009). A child witness who is sure of what they observed and is interviewed in a safe, positive environment with open-ended questions is highly likely to give an accurate report and be no more likely to report false memories than an adult in the same circumstances. In fact, it has been argued that if a child is exposed to suggestive interview techniques soon after the event, it actually encourages them to report the facts correctly as they are more sure of their own version of events and so can argue their own case more confidently (Castelli et al, 2009). It is slightly different with very young children who are more inclined to follow what adults say and can be influenced by inappropriate or misleading questioning (Castelli et al, 2009).
While eyewitness testimony is favoured because it is believed to be reliable, in reality, it is open to many problems that can result in innocent people being imprisoned (Castelli et al, 2009). It cannot be confirmed that all inaccuracies in witness testimony are due to the style of questioning used, though, as so many other factors play a role in the development in errors. Suggestibility in adult witnesses only occurs in a small number of cases as witnesses are usually able to maintain their own version of events. Children can remember events clearly but can have problems with reporting the information at a later date and so care has to be taken in the methods with which children are questioned (Castelli et al, 2009). The instances of children actually reporting false memories is actually very rare (Castelli et al, 2009). The problem may not be with children but the adults who deal with them after an event and their lack of understanding of the best way to work with child witnesses (Castelli et al, 2009). While there are some concerns about the suggestibility of children, research suggests that the biggest issue is with very young children and over time, the chance of interviewers being able to shape their statements does reduce and so is not as much of an issue as initially thought (Leichtman and Ceci, 2009; Menyk et al, 2009). Children are able to resist suggestibility when it comes to abuse-related questions and are more likely to be lead on small matters rather than anything significant (Castelli et al, 2009; Melnyk et al, 2009). Therefore, while questioning issues are present and should be examined, other factors have to be considered when evaluating the cause of inaccuracies in witness statements.
References
Bidrose, S. And Goodman, G.S. (2009) ‘Testimony and evidence: A scientific case study of memory for child sexual abuse’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. Critical Readings in Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Milton Keynes, The Open University
Brigham, J.C., Bennett, L.B., Meissner, C.A., and Mitchell, T.L. (2009) ‘The influence of race on eyewitness memory’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. Critical Readings in Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Milton Keynes, The Open University
Castelli, P., Goodman, G.S., Edelstein, R.S., Mitchell, E.B., Alonso, P.M.P., Lyons, K.E., and Newton, J.W. (2009) ‘Evaluating Eyewitness Testimony in Adults and Children’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. (eds.) Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Davis, D., Loftus, E.F., Vanous, S., and Cucciare, M. (2009) ‘’Unconscious transference’ can be an instance of ‘change blindness’’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. Critical Readings in Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Milton Keynes, The Open University
Goodman, G.S. and Quas, J.A. (2008) ‘Repeated Interviews and Children’s Memory: It’s More Than Just How Many’. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17 (386), [Online]. Available from http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/17/6/386.full.pdf+html (Accessed 1 December 2010)
Leichtman, M.D. and Ceci, S.J. (2009) ‘The effects of stereotypes and suggestions on preschoolders’ reports’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. Critical Readings in Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Milton Keynes, The Open University
Melnyk, L., Crossman, A.M., and Scullin, M. (2009) ‘The Suggestibility of Children’s Memory’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. (eds.) Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Ost, J., Granhag, P., Udell, J., and Roos, E. (2009) ‘Familiarity breeds distortion: The effects of media exposure on false reports concerning media coverage of the terrorist attacks in London on 7 July 2005’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. Critical Readings in Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Milton Keynes, The Open University
Paz-Alonso, P.M. and Goodman, G.S. (2009) ‘Trauma and memory: effects of post-event misinformation, retrieval order, and retention interval’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. Critical Readings in Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Milton Keynes, The Open University
Quas, J.A., Davis, E.L., Goodman, G.S., and Myers, J.E.B. (2007) ‘Repeated Questions, Deception, and Children’s True and False Reports of Body Touch’. Child Maltreatment, 12 (1), [Online]. Available from http://cmx.sagepub.com/content/12/1/60.full.pdf+html (Accessed 1 December 2010)
Valentine, T. (2009) ‘Identifying Perpetrators’ in Motzkau, J., Pike, G., Briggs, G., Brace, N., and Turner, J. (eds.) Forensic Psychology: Witnesses, Experts and Evidence on Trial, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd
0 comments:
Post a Comment