Why should investigators avoid labeling a survivor as lying when a report is unfounded?

• A. It preserves trust by focusing on the evidence rather than labeling the survivor as lying.
• B. It ensures that the investigation can be reopened quickly.
• C. It guarantees the accused is punished.
• D. It is mandated by policy to label suspects as non-credible.

Answer: (A)

When a survivor’s report isn’t supported by evidence, the focus should be on facts and credible investigation rather than labeling the survivor as deceptive. Labeling someone as lying shifts attention to the survivor’s character and can retraumatize them, erode trust in the investigation, and discourage future reporting. By sticking to the evidence, investigators document what was alleged, what can be corroborated, and why a finding isn’t supported, all while treating the survivor with respect. This approach maintains trust, encourages cooperation, and aligns with ethical, victim-centered practice.

Labels like accusing someone of lying aren’t mandated by policy and don’t help the investigation move forward; they don’t guarantee punishment or anything about reopening speed, and they misframe the purpose of the inquiry.