{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021108179419525065, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005277044854881266, 'mean_word_length': 6.228571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reliability of Professional Judgments in Forensic Child Sexual Abuse Evaluations: Unsettled or Unsettling Science?

In the absence of photographic or DNA evidence, a credible eyewitness, or perpetrator confession, forensic evaluators in cases of alleged child sexual abuse must rely on psychosocial or “soft” evidence, often requiring substantial professional judgment for case determination. This article offers a three-part rebuttal to Herman's (2009) argument that forensic decisions based on psychosocial evidence are fundamentally unreliable and that this conclusion represents settled science. The article also discusses the potentially adverse consequences of Herman's proposed reforms to forensic practice on child protection and prosecution efforts.