Comments on: Hypnosis Admissable In Court?

By: Adam Eason

Adam Eason — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:01:02 +0000

Last I heard Ellie, the case had been overturned for second time:

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/01/25/news/local/doc479a2266d1efc594834033.txt?sPos=2

By: Ellie

Ellie — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:22:55 +0000

Thanks for the mention, Adam. Have you heard anymore about the out come of the Moore trial?

By: Adam Eason

Adam Eason — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:24:16 +0000

Also, I’d like to add that the delightful Ellie, AKA “The Transparent Hypnotist” covered this a wee while back too – go have a read about what she said in relation to this: http://transparenthypnotist.blogspot.com/2008/01/admissable-hypnosis.html

By: Adam Eason

Adam Eason — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:55:02 +0000

I got emailed this by Don Robertson earlier today at Facebook and thought I’d post his comment here for you too:

The reason hypnosis is often prohibited in police investigations, e.g., as the UK Home Office recommend, is because of the voluminuous evidence showing that it significantly increases the risk of distorting recalled memories. In 1933, Clark Hull, in the first major scientific textbook on experimental hypnosis, concluded that regression therapy carried a series risk of distorting memory, based on a series of laboratory studies on hypnotic recall. Since the 1980s research in this area has grown more sophisticated and grown to the extent that it influences the written policies of various professional bodies.

Even Hull seems to recognise that this risk is inherent and cannot be prevented merely by phrasing suggestions carefully, etc.

Personally, though a passionate supporter of hypnosis, I think it should probably be kept out of police investigations, and out of courtroom testimony, as our Home Office and the BPS guidelines recommend.

Don