(Witness for the Prosecution)

Direct Examination by Prosecutor Roger Gunson:

Woodling: I have participated in a number of training seminars that initially, in the 1970s, were gatherings of individuals who, like myself, were involved in doing sexual abuse examinations, where data was shared and where papers were presented in the work we were doing. I became very active in the area of sexual abuse evaluation and have participated extensively with the California Medical Association, the California Prosecuting Attorneys' Association.... We developed the State of California protocol for examining suspected victims of sexual abuse. . . . I have participated in programs that involved the education of physicians and nurse practitioners through teaching hospitals. . . also through the California Prosecuting Attorneys' Association. In 1975, I published a protocol in the California Prosecuting Attorneys' Association guidelines for dealing with sexual abuse....

[Woodling affirmed Astrid Heger's findings of sexual abuse, one by one.]

Cross-examination by Daniel Davis:

"...To your knowledge has any such study [using blind comparisons, without a suggestion as to whether a particular photograph depicted a child who had or had not been molested] ever been attempted?"
"No."
"What are the necessary ingredients for rendering a competent opinion about sexual abuse in a child?"
"I have established for myself as a criterion that I will have a data base. I will have a history, and I will have photographs if I don't have the child."
"Isn't it true that every human being is unique and no two are exactly the same?..."
"As a result of providing testimony on behalf of the prosecutors, how were you paid?"
"Through district attorney funds."
"At what amount?"
"My time is $2,500 a day."
"You were compensated for examining McMartin children in 1984?"
"I was."
"What was your rate of compensation?"
"Two hundred fIfty dollars per examination. . . conducting the examinations, meeting with Dr. Heger and Kee MacFarlane, discussing the cases, preparing the reports. . . ."
"Doctor, have you seen children who may have been molested. . . and found there were absolutely no physical symptoms of molestation?"
"I have seen cases where there were no physical findings."
"And have you ever found, after seeing a child suspected of being molested, with no symptoms at all, and found that that child was molested? You look at the child and found there was absolutely nothing wrong with it . . . and you determined that [the] child was molested?"
"As a physician who examines children for being victims of sexual abuse, what I do is collect a history which may include an allegation and the name of the perpetrator. . . ."
"In a court, you have actually articulated your opinion that both [names of two children] were sexually molested, haven't you?"
"I did."
"Now, in your own view, that's an incompetent finding for a doctor, isn't it?"
"No."
"Wasn't it true that that was ultimately a legal decision?"
"Objection. "
"Sustained. "
"Have you ever, without any physical finding, stated under oath that in your opinion, a child was molested?"
"I'm certain that in cases where there were no findings of molestation, what I have testified to in the past is that the lack of a physical finding does not preclude that the child was in fact either sodomized, fondled, or involved in an act of vulvar coitus."
"Have you ever testified, when there were no physical findings, that in your opinion there was no evidence of molestation?"
"I've never used that word. . . ."
"Have you ever, in a court of law, testified that, in your opinion, a child was not molested?"
"I don't believe I ever testified about [children being] 'molested.' I talk about trauma. . . consistent with digital manipulation, penile-genital contact, an act of sodomy. . . . The fact that a physical injury is not present does not preclude that a certain act may not [sic] have occurred."
"Now when you talked to [name of child], did you fmd any physical evidence . . . on her anus, consistent with sodomy by a penis?"
"I saw no evidence of trauma to her perianal area whatsoever. . . but certainly the lack of signs of trauma did not preclude a fmger or other object entering her rectum. "
"Did you see anything that, today, would affmn that a finger was put into her anus?"
"I saw nothing."
"Now doctor, as a teacher and a lecturer, have you ever advised other physicians that their testimony should never include statements that there is no finding of sexual molestation?"
"I usually teach them. . . one of the points that I teach them is that when doing examinations as physicians we are examining children where a report is generated to be used by other persons in arriving at a determination and I suggest to all of the physicians that they should never use as part of their diagnosis that a child. . . was not raped or was not molested, rather, I say that if you have to make an opinion. . . "
"Is it possible that a leading question might produce a false answer from a child?"
"A leading question might produce a directed answer....I have never been involved in any case where interviewers influenced children to say they were molested when in fact they were not. That has not been my experience..."
"In evaluating [name of girl] and other children, did you hold the conviction that children do not lie about molestation?" "Objection. "
"Sustained. "
"Do you believe, doctor, that children don't lie about something as serious as rape and sodomy?"
"Objection. "
"Sustained. "
"Do you feel that your belief that children don't lie about molestation may have influenced your opinion about [name of girl]?"
"No, I do not."
"You profess that belief, don't you?"
"Objection. "
"Sustained. "
"Do you believe that when children are being asked about molestationand say nothing happened, that can be a truthful statement?"
"It is my belief that sometimes children will say that nothing happened because they have a great deal of difficulty talking about the issue, and 1 believe a history is sometimes difficult to obtain. . . ."
"Can a child, in your experience, tell that he was not molested and be telling the truth?"
"Certainly. "
"Let's take the child [ who] says he hasn't been molested and then, three or four months later, says he was raped and sodomized. Can both of these statements be truthful?"
"I think that in my experience children don't give false reportings . . . and I know of a great many children who had a great deal of difficulty in making a disclosure. . . ."
"Do you think it's possible for an adult to influence a child to believe they were molested when in fact they weren't?"
"That has never been my experience and it's not my belief. I have never been involved in any case where I [felt] interviewers influenced children who were not molested to say in fact they were. . . ." .
"Did you look at the CII interviews of the McMartin children?"
"I did not."
"If a child makes serious allegations of rape and sodomy and then time passes and the child says instead of a penis going into a vagina, says it was a pencil-she changes the facts-in these circumstances would you consider the history to be believable in terms of molest[ing]?" . . .
"Would that give you any concern about the accuracy and reliability of the child?"
"No."
"If she told you, when you examined her, that it was a pencil, and, years later, said it was a penis, would that change your opinion about what happened?"
"No."
"I'd like to talk to you about false reports. By your definition would that include a situation where a child might say that he or she was sodomized and then, later on, say it didn't happen? Is that a false report by your definition?"
"That would be a false report but I have never seen an allegation of something where it was proved that it did not in fact happen. I'm aware of children retracting allegations, but that's part of the process of understanding the psychological dynamic of making disclosures."
"So your view of a child who retracts an allegation of molestation is not a child that's engaged in false reporting?"
"I would not conclude by retraction that a false report was made."
"Do you believe a child can believe they [sic] were molested because of statements of adults?"
"I've never seen a child that, to my knowledge, wasn't molested that's been convinced that he was. I've never had that experience."
"Did your medical findings corroborate sodomy?"
"There was no evidence on my examination of scarring but. . . the fact that I found no findings, in the sense of scarring, does not mean to me that sodomy did not occur, only that no scarring did occur from the sodomy. . . ."
"Do you feel, as a general principle, that children don't lie about molestation, and that they should be believed?"
"Objection. "
"Sustained. "
"The exhortation that children don't lie about molestation and that you should believe them. . . is that something you say every time you speak to your peers about evaluating child molestation?"
"I make that statement."
"When you say that, do you place any limitation on that premise?"
"I usually have explanations I give. . . but I do make that statement that children, when they make disclosures, should be believed. . . ."
"Do you think your belief that children never lie might have something to do with the low incidence of your findings of false reports?"
"I don't believe so."
"You produced a videotape and you ended that videotape with the statement that children don't lie. Remember?"
"Yes. That's the last thing I said on that tape. Yes."
"Have you changed from that position any?"
"No."
"Your position on the anus of [name of girl] is that it's consistent with the history, right?"
"Yes."
"Without the history it would be 'no opinion,' right?"
"Without the history it would be a normal anus."
"Could a doctor then say, looking at the anus of [name of girl], 'It is consistent with no molestation'?"
"It would be consistent with molestation with no trauma or no molestation. "
"And that's the state of the medical evidence of Veronica today?"
"That's correct...."