# False Memories | BONUS | Season 3

An episode of [Burden of Guilt](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1711277020), 21 Sep 2026, 14 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/ec39cd51-11c3-432e-aa44-b08500fd66ca/a8787792-5625-4dce-b891-b4c8015962b3/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=240645c5-ee68-49b9-8b4e-b08501009bb0

One witness who did not testify was Dr. Deryn Strange, a memory expert. In this bonus episode, Dr. Strange shares why the children’s forensic interviews were such a critical piece of evidence. Plus, hear what a juror said about this case. You can reach out to the Burden of Guilt team at Burdenofguiltpod@gmail.com. For more Burden of Guilt, follow us on Instagram @glasspodcasts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: At the civil trial involving Cindy, Kenny, Steve, and Christine,
[0:06] Speaker 1: the jury spent over four weeks listening to testimony from
[0:10] Speaker 1: 16 witnesses. Here's Kenny's lawyer, Chris Decker.
[0:15] Speaker 2: So one of the things that didn't happen in the
[0:18] Speaker 2: trial is we didn't have the children testify.
[0:22] Speaker 1: The children were minors at the time, and that's where
[0:25] Speaker 1: both sides drew the line.
[0:28] Speaker 2: Neither Cindy nor Steve nor the lawyers involved wanted these
[0:33] Speaker 2: kids to be a part of the trial.
[0:35] Speaker 1: Instead, the jury heard recordings of the children's forensic interviews.
[0:40] Speaker 2: It was the best evidence that no sexual assault had
[0:43] Speaker 2: happened and that the child had been manipulated to believe
[0:47] Speaker 2: that one had.
[0:48] Speaker 1: Chris even hired an expert to testify about the forensic interviews.
[0:54] Speaker 3: I've got to say, I haven't done any case that
[0:57] Speaker 3: resembles this particular one. because I saw some of the
[1:01] Speaker 3: worst things I've ever seen or ever hoped to see
[1:04] Speaker 3: in a forensic interview.
[1:06] Speaker 1: I'm Nancy Glass. In this bonus episode of Burden of Guilt,
[1:11] Speaker 1: the expert will break down the key moments where the
[1:14] Speaker 1: forensic interviews went wrong. Music You've already heard portions of
[1:33] Speaker 1: the children's forensic interviews in Episodes 5 and 6.
[1:38] Speaker 2: They were probably the most important single piece of evidence
[1:42] Speaker 2: in this case.
[1:44] Speaker 1: That's Kenny's lawyer, Chris Decker.
[1:47] Speaker 2: We generally only do one forensic interview. And in some cases,
[1:52] Speaker 2: a second forensic interview is conducted that was done in
[1:55] Speaker 2: this case. Those are very rare.
[1:58] Speaker 1: Something else Chris had never seen before? Steve made multiple
[2:03] Speaker 1: attempts to have additional forensic interviews. In Episode 7, you
[2:08] Speaker 1: heard how just two days after the children's initial interview,
[2:12] Speaker 1: Steve drove his son to a hospital three hours from
[2:15] Speaker 1: their house. A social worker from that hospital used the
[2:19] Speaker 1: word adamant to describe how Steve felt about his son
[2:24] Speaker 1: receiving another forensic interview. But that interview never happened.
[2:30] Speaker 2: A forensic interview is a part and parcel of a
[2:33] Speaker 2: criminal investigation. This type of forensic interview is done at
[2:40] Speaker 2: the request and direction of law enforcement or prosecutors. This
[2:45] Speaker 2: is not something that individuals can simply demand or request.
[2:51] Speaker 1: And that's important. Because in November of 2019, six weeks
[2:55] Speaker 1: after the boy's initial forensic interview, Steve once again tried
[3:00] Speaker 1: to get another one.
[3:03] Speaker 2: Steve tried to bring his children up for an unscheduled
[3:08] Speaker 2: forensic interview. That's exceptionally rare. I've never seen it. This
[3:14] Speaker 2: shows me the high level of priority that Steve had
[3:20] Speaker 2: in trying to interfere with or manipulate the ordinary judicial
[3:26] Speaker 2: process of any sexual assault on a child investigation.
[3:31] Speaker 1: So the question is, why did Steve keep pushing this issue?
[3:37] Speaker 2: I think Steve wanted another forensic interview because he believed
[3:42] Speaker 2: that his son would give evidence more specific details, more
[3:47] Speaker 2: evidence to bring a criminal prosecution, which is what his
[3:51] Speaker 2: objective was from the outset.
[3:57] Speaker 1: Ultimately, the district attorney called for a second interview of
[4:01] Speaker 1: the boys in May 2020. Those interviews and the original
[4:06] Speaker 1: interviews became key pieces of evidence as Chris prepared for
[4:10] Speaker 1: the trial.
[4:12] Speaker 2: I took the lead in reviewing the forensic interviews. because
[4:16] Speaker 2: I have a great deal of experience in that area,
[4:18] Speaker 2: and not only can I watch them with a more
[4:22] Speaker 2: experienced eye, I'm able to send those tapes to experts
[4:26] Speaker 2: who can confirm what I'm seeing, which is usually a
[4:30] Speaker 2: violation of the interview protocols or details that are coming
[4:37] Speaker 2: out in that interview that are concerning. And in this case,
[4:42] Speaker 2: that was happening in spades.
[4:45] Speaker 1: That led Chris to enlist the help of an expert.
[4:49] Speaker 3: My name is Dr. Darren Strange. I'm a full professor
[4:53] Speaker 3: of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and
[4:56] Speaker 3: I have a specialty in memory distortion.
[4:59] Speaker 2: Dr. Darren Strange is, in my opinion, the preeminent scientist
[5:05] Speaker 2: on the human memory process. When I saw the second
[5:09] Speaker 2: forensic interview, where The child was attributing his belief to
[5:14] Speaker 2: something his father told him. I knew I needed her input,
[5:19] Speaker 2: especially in light of the first forensic interview where the
[5:22] Speaker 2: child was merely describing a playful wedgie.
[5:26] Speaker 4: Dr.
[5:27] Speaker 1: Strange reviewed both sets of forensic interviews and the interview
[5:31] Speaker 1: the boy had with DHS caseworker Kamala Haidt.
[5:35] Speaker 3: This case really felt to me like the worst kind
[5:38] Speaker 3: of onion ever. I saw some of the worst things
[5:41] Speaker 3: I've ever seen or ever hoped to see in a
[5:43] Speaker 3: forensic interview. But as I peeled that layer away, then
[5:47] Speaker 3: you have just layer after layer of the contamination of
[5:53] Speaker 3: this child's memory.
[5:56] Speaker 1: It was her opinion that what the child said in
[5:59] Speaker 1: the second interview was a result of things that happened
[6:03] Speaker 1: in the first interview.
[6:05] Speaker 3: So in interview one, I really did see some things
[6:09] Speaker 3: that I thought were egregious, unforgivable from an interviewer. The
[6:15] Speaker 3: first of those is that the interviewer explicitly told the
[6:20] Speaker 3: child that the doctor did not think that the alleged
[6:24] Speaker 3: injury could have come from a wedgie.
[6:27] Speaker 5: The doctor that saw your bottom is very worried that
[6:32] Speaker 5: the injuries that you have to your bottom did not
[6:35] Speaker 5: happen from a wedgie.
[6:37] Speaker 3: That is not what the report stated, and it's obviously
[6:41] Speaker 3: a suggestive and leading question. But she didn't stop there.
[6:45] Speaker 5: So tell me how else the injuries to your bottom happened.
[6:52] Speaker 3: He is told that two people in positions of authority
[6:58] Speaker 3: telling a child, you're wrong, it could not have happened
[7:01] Speaker 3: this way, it was not a wedgie. Tell me how
[7:05] Speaker 3: it could have happened. And children are really susceptible to
[7:09] Speaker 3: authority figures. So the significance of that statement we actually
[7:14] Speaker 3: see play out over the course of the following forensic interviews.
[7:20] Speaker 1: A day after that interview, the boy met with Kamala,
[7:24] Speaker 1: the DHS caseworker.
[7:26] Speaker 3: So the boy here specifically states that because he was
[7:31] Speaker 3: told this, he's been thinking about how else it could
[7:34] Speaker 3: have happened. He has multiple conversations with his dad and
[7:40] Speaker 3: his stepmother that really answer all his questions so that
[7:44] Speaker 3: ultimately he comes to a very detailed story of how
[7:48] Speaker 3: it had to happen.
[7:49] Speaker 1: Now he claimed that Kenny shoved something up his bottom.
[7:53] Speaker 3: This was a very privileged example of the development of
[7:57] Speaker 3: what I see as a false memory. So the other
[8:01] Speaker 3: point that I found pretty egregious in this interview was
[8:04] Speaker 3: a fixation on a dream that the boy had had.
[8:11] Speaker 1: In his first forensic interview, the boy repeatedly was asked
[8:15] Speaker 1: about a dream where the strongest man on earth pulled
[8:18] Speaker 1: open his bottom.
[8:19] Speaker 5: What do you think about that dream? I know it's
[8:22] Speaker 5: not real.
[8:24] Speaker 3: And then she's challenging him when he's saying that it
[8:27] Speaker 3: was just a dream.
[8:29] Speaker 5: Sometimes when scary things or hurtful things happen, we think
[8:35] Speaker 5: they're dreams, but they may actually be things that have happened.
[8:39] Speaker 5: Is that what your dream was about?
[8:43] Speaker 3: I really don't have words to tell you how suggestive
[8:47] Speaker 3: and how awful a statement that is from a person
[8:49] Speaker 3: in a position of authority.
[8:51] Speaker 5: Over a child.
[8:53] Speaker 1: By the time of the boy's second forensic interview, eight
[8:57] Speaker 1: months had passed, and Dr. Strange was shocked at how
[9:00] Speaker 1: the boy's story had evolved.
[9:03] Speaker 5: Tell me what you're here.
[9:03] Speaker 2: To talk with me about today. I'm here to talk
[9:07] Speaker 2: about with you my story of sexual assault. Okay.
[9:14] Speaker 5: And how did you learn that word? My dad said, oh,
[9:18] Speaker 5: I got sexually assaulted, and I said, what.
[9:20] Speaker 3: Does that mean?
[9:21] Speaker 2: And then he told me that. Okay, so your dad
[9:23] Speaker 2: told you.
[9:24] Speaker 5: That you were sexually assaulted.
[9:26] Speaker 3: Okay. If I'm just relying on the child's words, it
[9:32] Speaker 3: was so clear where the memory had come from.
[9:36] Speaker 2: What has your dad told you about what's.
[9:38] Speaker 5: Happened to you?
[9:41] Speaker 1: Dad, like, can you.
[9:43] Speaker 3: Stop talking about it?
[9:44] Speaker 5: But, and it was really wrong of him to do that,
[9:49] Speaker 5: and So your dad told you that Kenny stuck something
[9:53] Speaker 5: up your butt? He comes to state that.
[10:00] Speaker 3: Kenny had shoved something up his bottom and it had
[10:02] Speaker 3: to happen while he was sleeping. So now he recalls
[10:12] Speaker 3: being drugged. And how does he come to recall being drugged?
[10:16] Speaker 3: Because he's talked to his father. And to Christine, and
[10:19] Speaker 3: he remembers that he was given something that tasted a
[10:22] Speaker 3: little bit funny. He must have given me something to
[10:25] Speaker 3: keep me sleeping. The rest of the details are built
[10:29] Speaker 3: over time into this memory. And then he claims it's
[10:32] Speaker 3: real because it feels real to him because it is
[10:36] Speaker 3: so detailed and because that's the false feedback he's getting
[10:40] Speaker 3: all the time.
[10:42] Speaker 5: Did you tell the doctor who had done something to you?
[10:55] Speaker 3: I'll be honest, I've never seen in another case how
[11:00] Speaker 3: it actually unfolds so clearly that my dad told me this,
[11:06] Speaker 3: we've been talking about it, and we've decided. So it's
[11:09] Speaker 3: a very clear textbook example for me of the development
[11:13] Speaker 3: of false memories. Dr.
[11:16] Speaker 1: Strange wrote a 27-page report about her findings.
[11:21] Speaker 3: So I did come to the conclusion that he'd been coached,
[11:23] Speaker 3: and it wasn't a particularly hard conclusion because he states
[11:27] Speaker 3: repeatedly in those forensic interviews, my dad told me, Christine
[11:32] Speaker 3: told me.
[11:33] Speaker 1: She wrote that the boy's evolving story about what happened
[11:37] Speaker 1: to him is, quote, the result of suggestion instigated by
[11:41] Speaker 1: the first forensic interviewer and cultivated to its current form
[11:45] Speaker 1: by his father, Steve.
[11:47] Speaker 3: It's the best example I've seen of how people can
[11:51] Speaker 3: influence what a child says happened to them.
[11:57] Speaker 1: During the civil trial, Dr. Strange was flown to Steamboat
[12:00] Speaker 1: Springs to testify as an expert witness, but she ultimately
[12:04] Speaker 1: wasn't called.
[12:05] Speaker 3: The impression I got was that they didn't need my
[12:09] Speaker 3: evidence because they were relatively sure that the jury was
[12:15] Speaker 3: with them.
[12:16] Speaker 1: Here's Chris Decker again.
[12:18] Speaker 2: Although we had endorsed her and we had spent a
[12:21] Speaker 2: large number of hours and financial resources getting her ready,
[12:25] Speaker 2: we felt that on balance it was not necessary, and
[12:29] Speaker 2: so that's why we chose not to call her at trial.
[12:33] Speaker 1: Chris's hunch was correct. We interviewed one of the jurors
[12:38] Speaker 1: from this case and asked him about the forensic interviews.
[12:42] Speaker 4: It just seemed like the kids were totally coached on
[12:44] Speaker 4: like what to say. That's ultimately what we resolved with
[12:48] Speaker 4: was that the kids were basically coached.
[12:51] Speaker 1: The juror also struggled to believe Steve.
[12:55] Speaker 4: Steve and his whole family's testimony is like what sticks
[12:58] Speaker 4: in my mind the most. There was all these crucial
[13:01] Speaker 4: things that people couldn't remember or like didn't exist in
[13:06] Speaker 4: It was just so hard to believe anything that they
[13:09] Speaker 4: were saying because it just all seemed so fabricated. So
[13:12] Speaker 4: I think that was just the biggest downfall right there
[13:14] Speaker 4: was their testimony. But when Steve took the stand like that,
[13:19] Speaker 4: sealed the deal, he would take every single question, turn
[13:24] Speaker 4: it around somehow and redirect and answer like a different question.
[13:28] Speaker 4: And it was just every single question. It was getting
[13:31] Speaker 4: to the point where it was like, We don't really
[13:33] Speaker 4: believe you. Just answer the question and get it over
[13:35] Speaker 4: with because you're not doing yourself any favors right here.
[13:41] Speaker 1: The jury ultimately sided with Cindy and Kenny and awarded
[13:44] Speaker 1: them over $ 20 million in damages.
[13:48] Speaker 2: Every parent that I know would step in front of
[13:52] Speaker 2: a train, take a bullet, do anything so that their
[13:55] Speaker 2: child would be protected. To see a situation like where
[14:00] Speaker 2: a person is so disconnected that they're willing to create
[14:05] Speaker 2: a false narrative of that and essentially use their child
[14:09] Speaker 2: as a tool is something I really can't understand. It's
[14:15] Speaker 2: just beyond belief.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.