The 4-year-old girl, a preschooler at the Park Hill Children’s Center, suddenly became shy, looked away, said “no” or said nothing in August when adults tried to determine whether a teacher’s aide had touched her inappropriately.
It was two or three weeks before she signaled that someone had abused her in her day care classroom.
In talks with her mother and during counseling that followed, the girl — whose name is being withheld to protect her identity — detailed her abuse, but would not name her molester.
Her mother — and the parents of a dozen other Park Hill preschool students — believe 19-year-old aide Benjamin Janicki spent weeks sneaking opportunities to assault their children before one youngster told an adult.
Janicki faces charges tied to four of those kids and is scheduled for arraignment next month.
It’s unclear whether he will face charges for the other children who say he molested them, but it’s certain that he won’t in the case of the 4-year-old girl.
Her reluctance to name her alleged abuser underscores one of many difficulties in prosecuting sex crimes alleged by very young victims in a system set up for adults.
Lack of evidence, testimony
Prosecutors like Boulder Deputy District Attorney Catrina Weigel frequently have little or no physical evidence to back up allegations of children, who may or may not be capable of testifying in court.
“It comes down to the victim having to tell what happened. A lot of young kids can’t do that,” said Weigel, who spent three years prosecuting sex crimes against children. “If they can’t testify, a lot of times we don’t have a case.”
It wasn’t always so.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Crawford v. Washington, prosecutors were able to more easily introduce police or counselor interviews with kids without requiring children’s testimony in court.
But the 2004 decision emphasized a defendant’s right to face his or her accuser and greatly limited the use of such interviews unless the child was available for cross-examination.
Now, if kids are unavailable to testify, their out-of-court statements are allowed only in rare instances.
Long before a case reaches the courtroom, kids sit down with forensic interviewers trained to draw out information without planting ideas that can lead to false allegations.
Consultant Michelle Peterson has conducted more than 3,000 forensic interviews with children.
She said victims younger than 10 are highly suggestible. The 6 and younger set also have a poor grasp of time, memory issues and often don’t yet have the language to describe their abuse.
Younger kids tend not to fabricate allegations about sex acts they’ve never experienced, Peterson said.
She likened it to someone who’s never jumped from a plane trying to describe the experience of skydiving.
“When you hear from a child in their own words, how would they know?” Peterson said. “Most of the time they’ll deny or minimize rather than make something up.”
Defending the accused
Child sex abuse cases also prove tricky for defendants.
Parents act as gatekeepers. Often the first time a defense attorney can talk with the accuser is during the trial, said Jason Savela, who’s handled a number of child sex abuse cases.
That gives the defense lawyer less time to look for evidence that children have been coached, or otherwise influenced.
Then there’s the jury’s perception.
“In any case involving a child, you’re a little closer to a guilty verdict,” Savela said. “Good, innocent people can go to jail for the rest for their lives based on the inaccurate word of a child.”
Park Hill parents like Judy DeHaas are bracing for similar arguments from Janicki’s defense counsel.
DeHaas, a former Denver Post photographer, said her son was fondled at the children’s center. She’s watching the first cases against Janicki.
“I believe there are going to be charges beyond this,” DeHaas said.
Jessica Fender: 303-954-1244 or jfender@denverpost.com.
