Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Dad with shared custody on trial for sexually abusing daughter; expert smears daughter as crazy liar (Canberra, Australia)

So-called experts like Donald Thomson are just hired hand whores of the court. This idiot should know very well that just because a previous child abuse allegation was (allegedly) "unsubstantiated" doesn't mean the child was lying or crazy. It just means that (allegedly) there was not enough evidence to charge the perpetrator.

All of this hocus pocus crap is straight out of the fathers rights/defense attorney playbook. Call the mom and/or the children vindictive, lying crazies. Meanwhile, neatly ignore suspicious evidence like the UNNAMED DAD ADMITTING that he slept in the same bed with his 7-year-old daughter during his visitation time.

What this article does not explore is that the psychological theories Thomson draws on are of dubious scientific value and highly controversial.


Sex abuse claim by daughter doubted by child memory expert
Date March 5, 2014

Christopher Knaus
Reporter for The Canberra Times

A child memory expert has expressed doubts about the story of a young Canberra girl who says she was sexually abused by her father, saying he is concerned over unsubstantiated allegations she previously levelled at her grandfather.

A 52-year-old father, who cannot be named, is on trial in the ACT Supreme Court for allegedly committing sexual assault and acts of indecency on his daughter when she was aged six and seven.

He has pleaded not guilty to six charges, five relating to acts of indecency and one of an offence of sexual intercourse without consent, which were allegedly committed between May and late December 2012.

The jury has already heard pre-recorded evidence from the girl, and videos of her police interviews, in which she speaks of the alleged sexual abuse by her father.

But in the witness box on Tuesday, the father denied accusations he had committed the crimes against the girl.

The accused and the girl's mother had divorced and were informally sharing custody of their daughter.

He said the girl had slept with him in his bed because she was scared of the dark.

On their last weekend together in January last year, the father remembered taking his daughter to the movies and then for hamburgers and slushies, something he said she enjoyed a lot and was very animated about.

But a week later, he said police were on his doorstep, telling him she had made accusations of a sexual nature against him.

''I was very shocked, my mind was probably running in a hundred different directions at once,'' he said. ''I just said to myself 'you haven't done this … but what's going on, what's the motivation behind this?'''

But the Crown, represented by prosecutor John Lundy, said the man's story did not make sense, and asked why the girl could not have slept on a fold-out couch.

The man replied that she had asked to sleep with him because she was scared of the dark.

The court heard that the girl had previously made separate allegations against her grandfather, which were not substantiated.

The man's barrister, James Lawton, called evidence from Professor Donald Thomson, an expert on forensic psychology, specialising in child memory and recall.

The girl's first police interview took place in February last year, about six weeks after the last alleged offence.

Professor Thomson told the court that time gap could impact on a child's recollection.

He said the nine months that had passed since the first alleged offence in May 2012 could have made recall ''very, very poor'' and led to the omission and confusion of facts.

Professor Thomson expressed concern that the girl appeared to have discussed the issue with her mother.

It was also concerning that the girl appeared to have constructed the story about her grandfather with considerable detail and complexity.

He said if she could make up such a story about her grandfather, she could do it to any other person.

The trial continues before Justice Richard Refshauge on Wednesday, when both defence and prosecution are expected to give their closing submissions to the jury.