The Goodman et al. study involved CSA cases that issued in the prosecution of the alleged perpetrator. The study sample thus likely excluded many viable cases that were investigated and "validated" by police or child protective service agencies, but then were later rejected for prosecution because of the heavy burden of proof required in legal proceedings. The author of this paper, who has served as a prosecutor in screening CSA cases, notes that as many as 50-75 percent of valid cases were rejected for prosecution. The children in these "rejected" cases were denied the supportive experience that accompanies formal criminal prosecution in terms of contextual seriousness and heightened validation from those committed to prosecuting the alleged perpetrator. Further, CSA cases brought to prosecution typically involve perpetrators outside the victim's family. CSA by a family member is less likely to come to the attention of criminal justice authorities. Overall, the limited parameters for selecting the CSA cases for research by Goodman et al. should lead to surprise that virtually all of the participants did not remember their CSA experience. Goodman et al.'s findings should lead to a further inquiry regarding the impact of the criminal justice system on the subsequent memory of CSA survivors who were subjected to the conditions of criminal case processing. 5 references