I found interesting the claim made by the prosecutor about not believing that children have a predisposition to lie, when the elements of the case suggest that it was the adults, not the child, who may have lied
She reframed it as a predisposition to lie but that wasn't the point at issue. It's just a predisposition to agree with adults or to be persuaded. The children were 3, they definitely weren't lying on purpose
the point the judge raises about asking the child about a blue or pink dress, and the child saying something to the effect of, 'well sometimes it's blue, but really pink' has several epistemological things going on - perhaps not relevant to whether the child is competent, but how competence is established
A 3 yr old is not predisposed to lie. So their testimony should be taken into account. I think the problem is whether or not that "testimony" is the actual correct version of event since it came from that woman (italics omitted).