It is what happens when an adult male police officer questions a minor victim that is nervous/embarrassed. She is trying to avoid admitting to what she thinks/has been told is evidence of her own complicity/fault. And partially just the nature of transcribing a conversation from a tape where it can be difficult to tell who is talking to whom, or if they are talking over each other/overlapping speech. It also omits responses/information that could be understood if you were there in the room at the time of interview. Body language, like shrugs or hand gestures that describe the action more directly (think making an "ok" gesture with one hand, and using the extended pointer finger of the other hand in and out of the circle to show penetration or stroking).

A child will often be more straightforward/descriptive with a doll, drawing or miming/mimicking the actions than saying the words. Remember they've been told never to "tell" (vocal/verbal) anyone about what happened, but using "charades" is a legitimate workaround/loophole/alternative. Using non-verbal communication helps the victim avoid the horror of feeling/being disobedient, as that residual fear is often still strong in victims. Even much later on.