The Children’s Testimonies

 

The Children’s Institute International (CII) and the interviewing methods led by social worker Kee MacFarlane (not Kathleen MacFarlane) represent a catastrophic failure of forensic protocol that directly manufactured the “evidence” used in the McMartin case and others. The techniques employed were not simply flawed; they were a form of psychological manipulation that corrupted the entire judicial process.

The CII Interview Methodology: A Recipe for False Testimony

The core of the problem lay in the interview process itself, which was designed to extract a pre-determined narrative of Satanic ritual abuse rather than to discover the truth.

Anatomically Correct Dolls as Propelling Agents: The use of these dolls was presented as a neutral tool to help children communicate, but in practice, they became instruments of suggestion. Interviewers would often begin by showing the dolls to the children and explicitly pointing out the genitalia, immediately sexualizing the context of the interview. Children, eager to please adults and understand what was expected, would often mimic or elaborate on the actions demonstrated or implied with the dolls.

Leading and Coercive Questioning: The interviews were saturated with leading questions that presumed guilt. Instead of asking open-ended questions like “What happened at school?”, interviewers would ask, “Did Mr. Ray touch you with the fork?” or “When did the teacher take you to the tunnel?” This technique implants specific details into a child’s mind, which they may then incorporate into their own memories or statements. Negative responses were often met with repetition or rephrasing until the child provided the desired affirmative answer.

Positive Reinforcement for Allegations: Children who described abuse were praised and affirmed (“You’re such a good helper”), while those who denied anything happened were subtly pressured or the questioning would continue. This created a clear incentive structure: alleging abuse brought positive adult attention and an end to the stressful interview.

The Astonishing Statistical Outcome

The result of these methods was a statistical absurdity that should have been a massive red flag. The claim that 384 out of approximately 400 children were abused is not evidence of a crime wave; it is evidence of an interrogation wave. It defies all logic that such a vast, systematic abuse ring could operate for years with near-total participation of the children and leave absolutely no physical evidence—no tunnels were ever found, no forensic evidence corroborated the fantastical stories. The number is a direct product of the interviewers’ techniques, which defined denial as non-compliance and allegation as successful cooperation.

The Long-Term Psychological Fallout

The consequences for the children and their families were devastating and lifelong.

For the Children: Many of the interviewed children suffered severe psychological harm. They were subjected to repeated, stressful interrogations that forced them to confront terrifying and confusing ideas. Some genuinely came to believe the false memories that were implanted, leading to long-term trauma. Others experienced guilt and confusion later in life when they realized their testimony had been coerced and had ruined innocent lives.

For the Accused: The accused teachers had their lives destroyed. They faced public vilification, lengthy imprisonment without conviction, and a permanent stain on their reputations. The emotional and financial toll was immense.

For the Families: The panic ripped families and the community apart. It created an atmosphere of suspicion where parents were terrified, and trust was obliterated. Families who supported the accused were often ostracized.

The CII’s methods have since been thoroughly discredited by psychological and legal experts. The McMartin case became a textbook example of how not to interview child witnesses. It stands as a solemn warning of the damage that occurs when the pursuit of a narrative overrides the pursuit of truth, and when well-intentioned but misguided “experts” are allowed to substitute ideology for empirical evidence. The real abuse in many of these cases was not what happened in the preschool, but what was done to the children in the interview room.