The legal and psychological literature on children’s testimony in child sexual abuse cases has largely focused on whether children are allowed to testify, how children testify, and what happens after they do. Those concerned about false convictions have emphasized the benefits of mechanisms to exclude children’s testimony that is unreliable because of pre-trial influence or developmental immaturity1 and the utility of expert testimony on children’s suggestibility. Those concerned about false acquittals have argued for eliminating barriers to receiving children’s testimony, the benefits of setting up special devices (such as screens or closed-circuit television) for receiving testimony, and the utility of expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation. Both sides of the debate have emphasized the extent to which children’s reports are subject to adult influence. Those skeptical of children’s abuse claims have emphasized the influence of suspicious adults and overzealous investigators, whereas those inclined to believe children’s reports have emphasized the influence of perpetrators (and the adults aligned with perpetrators).