Statements are often an important source of information for investigators and all the more so when they may involve sex crimes that occurred several years ago.
Meer nog, beschuldigingen aan het adres van de vermeende zedendelinquent zijn vaker wel dan niet gebaseerd op de verklaringen van het slachtoffer.
The result is that, in some cases, the alleged sex offender is arrested and remanded in custody without any other objective evidence.
Such consequences obviously have a major impact on a suspect's (social) life, and in that case it may be appropriate to request a credibility study.
The request for the credibility investigation
Hoewel magistraten en onderzoekers sowieso zelf ook een oordeel zullen vellen over de geloofwaardigheid van de verklaringen en hun oordeel in rekening zullen brengen, heeft de verdachte steeds de mogelijk om te verzoeken om de aanstelling van een gediplomeerde deskundige, moest dat nog niet gebeurd zijn.
Such a request, in legal terms, constitutes a request for additional investigation and may or may not be granted by the competent authorities.
In the event that the request is respected, an expert - such as a clinical psychologist - is then appointed specifically to verify the credibility of the victim's statements.
The method of credibility testing
De deskundige baseert zich in dit kader niet enkel op hetgeen het slachtoffer effectief meldt maar ook op de manier waarop en op de lichaamstaal.
Nonetheless, the expert does not always have to be present during the interrogation of the victim and can also perform his or her task afterwards, which is admittedly significantly easier in case the interrogation of the victim was recorded.
However, even without such a recording, the expert can still do his or her job. In fact, he or she can have a new conversation with the victim himself or herself.
More specifically, in most cases, the expert will evaluate the credibility of the statement using a criteria-based content analysis.
Die analyse vertrekt vanuit het idee dat verklaringen van waargebeurde feiten zowel qua inhoud als kwaliteit verschillen van verklaringen die gebaseerd zijn op fantasie, fictie of onder dwang tot stand komen.
Beoordeling verschillende criteria
Furthermore, the analysis involves an assessment of various criteria, and depending on how many criteria the statement meets, it will be determined how likely it is to be based on self-experienced facts.
All in all, 19 different criteria will be charged; criteria that can be grouped into five categories:
1. Algemene kenmerken van de getuigenverklaring
- Logical structure
- Unstructured reproduction
- Detailed
2. Specific content of the witness statement
- Contextual framing
- Description of interactions
- Display of conversations
- Unexpected complications during the incident
3. Peculiarities of the content
- Unusual details
- Superfluous details
- Accurately rendered, misinterpreted details
- Coherent external associations
- Description of his or her mental state
- Attributions of the offender's mental state
4. Motivation to make a truthful statement
- Spontaneous corrections
- Admitting that one does not remember things very well
- Raise doubts about self-declaration
- Self-rejection
- Apologizing to the accused
5. Elements of the crime
- Details characteristic of the crime
After analyzing the representation of the facts, the expert will validate the statement based on an evaluation of the victim's behavior, the course of the initial disclosures, the motivation for reporting and the consistency between the various statements.
Results of the credibility study
The fact that a statement meets several of the criteria listed above and passes validation means that it is more likely to be considered credible, as stated above.
Although, a credible explanation can also be disputed, given that there is still debate among scientists as to which criteria carry more weight and given that validation also involves consistency between various explanations; a validation that lay people could also venture into.
The opposite case - where only some of the criteria are met and the validation yields negative results - has the effect that magistrates and investigators will attach less importance to the statement in question.
In any case, the expert will confine himself or herself to a mere assessment of the credibility of the statements in se and will always refrain from pronouncing on the facts per se; therefore, the expert will never indicate whether or not, in his or her opinion, the facts have taken place.
If you would like more information about this, please feel free to contact us at info@bannister.be or 03/369.28.00.
July 14, 2020
