This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Social Work Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This is a well-written article, and worth including...but be careful that it doesn't read like an editorial. I've changed the article to remove some of the POV material, and let the facts speak for themselves. See WP:POV -- MisterHand 21:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

the category ties it to the other cases, please leave intact

No problem, article is a lot better now. -- MisterHand 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Michael's defense raised questions about the manner in which the alleged victims were interviewed. Defense lawyers maintained that the children were manipulated, coerced, or encouraged to give testimony that was consistent with the investigators' suspicions.

In an amicus brief in the case of New Jersey v. Michaels, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists identified specific areas of concern with the children's interviews: ^[1]

• Effects of interviewer bias. The brief cites research indicating that investigators who come to an interview with preconceived beliefs are more likely to ask leading questions and to interpret answers in a way that supports their hypotheses.
• Repeated questions. The interviewers tended to repeat and rephrase questions whenever a child denied abuse. The brief cites research showing that children are likely to change their answers to questions that are repeated multiple times, in an effort to please the interviewer.
• Repeating misinformation across reviews. The brief cites research which found that children who are given incorrect information during questioning are likely to incorporate it into later retellings of their stories. Because the initial interviews with the children were not recorded or transcribed, the brief notes that it is impossible to tell whether events were suggested by the interviewers.
• Emotional tone of the interviews. The brief takes issue with the 'encouraging' statements given by the interviewers to set the children at ease, arguing that they amounted to pressure to please the interviewer by saying what he wanted to hear. The interviewers also threatened uncooperative children with punishment and rewarded those who participated with toys and police badges. The brief cites an example of inappropriate encouragement:

McGrath: Do you want to sit on my lap? Come here. I am so proud of you. I love big girls like you that tell me what happened -- that aren't afraid because I am here to protect you. Did you ever see what's this right here?...You got such pretty eyes. You are going to grow to be a beautiful young lady. I'm jealous, I'm too old for you.

• The use of peer pressure in interviews. Interviewers in the case tried to set children at ease by saying that their friends had "already told" everything. The brief cites studies showing that children will change their answers to fit those given by their peer group, even when the answer is clearly incorrect.
• Interviews were conducted by high-status adults. The brief cites research showing that children are more likely to defer to or try to please interviewers who are perceived as trustworthy or high-status adults, such as uniformed policemen. They are also more likely to incorporate facts suggested by high-status adults into their accounts.
• Stereotype inducement. The brief notes that interviewers repeatedly referred to Michaels as "a bad girl" who deserved to be punished. The brief cites research showing that children are more likely to interpret actions as benign when they are assured that the actor is a good person, and more likely to interpret actions as threatening when they are told that the actor is a bad person.

From an interview with an 8-year-old male student:

MacFarlane: Mr. Monkey is a little bit chicken, and he can't remember any of the naked games, but we think that you can, 'cause we know a naked games that you were around for, 'cause the other kids told us, and it's called Naked Movie Star. Do you remember that game, Mr. Alligator, or is your memory too bad?

Boy: Um, I don't remember that game.

MacFarlane: Oh, Mr. Alligator.

Boy: Umm, well, it's umm, a little song that me and [a friend] heard of.

MacFarlane: Oh.

Boy: Well, I heard out loud someone singing, "Naked Movie Star, Naked Movie Star."

MacFarlane: You know that, Mr. Alligator? That means you're smart, 'cause that's the same song the other kids knew and that's how we really know you're smarter than you look. So you better not play dumb, Mr. Alligator.

Boy: Well, I didn't really hear a whole lot. I just heard someone yell it from out in the _ Someone yelled it.

MacFarlane: Maybe. Mr. Alligator, you peeked in the window one day and saw them playing it, and maybe you could remember and help us.

Boy: Well, no, I haven't seen anyone playing Naked Movie Star. I've only heard the song.

MacFarlane: What good are you? You must be dumb. ^[2]

Is there a reason this article quotes from an entirely diferent trial at the bottom? The way its written the reader is lead to believe that the interview exerp is from the Wee Care case when its actually from the McMartin case. 149.169.6.124 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I would prefer that the pages stay separate. This case was a fairly large and important one. Abuse truth ( talk) 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Am I wrong, or was this an other satanic ritual abuse case? Wasn't Michaels accused of SRA? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

How is having the lyrics to "Both Sides Now" written in a book evidence of molestation? Is this vandalism? It's not on the source that's listed 98.236.65.15 ( talk) 18:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply