In a discussion of his experiences in examining data on an early nursery school sexual abuse case and another false accusation of sexual abuse, Bursten goes to great pains to detail his analysis of the data; his citations of inconsistencies made a clear case that the accusations were based on unreliable data and defied "common sense." He then goes on to question whether it is the appropriate province of the psychiatric expert to conduct interviews or investigations, because everyone has the "common sense" necessary for such critical thinking. Yet it was the physician who developed the analysis that made the inconsistencies clear to the attorney and the court. I believe that Bursten takes a far too conservative view of the role of the expert in such cases. As physicians, psychiatrists are trained in the normal and abnormal conditions that are the human condition. Forensic psychiatrists have training in seeking out multiple collateral sources to complete their investigations. It is the combination of the understanding of normal child development, human psychology, and psychopathology and the possession of the requisite interviewing skills that enables the forensic psychiatrist to provide the expert integration of data and thereby contribute to the finding of truth.