The Validity of Eyewitness Accounts - What You See is What You Think!

Eyewitness testimony is far from being full-proof.stage operators and fringe medical and psychology
Despite the assumption that witnesses under oath arepractitioners. When legitimate psychologists began
honest, sincere, and credible and that they claim thatperforming forensic hypnosis interviews, courts around
their memories are clear and accurate, there may bethe nation found it convenient to throw hypnotically
sufficient discrepancies. Witnesses may rememberenhanced testimony citing the Frye Test, which is used
accurately, but misremember what they originallyto prevent the admissibility of polygraph test results.
perceived.The Frye test was used to lump hypnosis as "new
Any two witnesses to the same event willand unproven technologies." The question of
undoubtedly and unfailingly observe it differently. Whatconfabulations was not directly ruled upon.
is subjectively true to a witness may be objectivelyAnother factor was that the clinical psychologists
false due to faulty or defective perception. Perceptionwere ruining hypnotic interviews because they had a
is not a fixed or static ability that all people have to thedifficulty differentiating between therapy and a forensic
same degree. It is highly variable and fluid.interrogation. There were several cases in a row in
As a forensic hypnotist, one of the first things that IAlabama, for instance, where such testimonies were
must ask a witness or victim is the condition of theirthrown out because the psychologist used techniques
vision (i.e., farsightedness, nearsightedness,that led the courts to feel like they were too
colorblindness) or whether that are taking medication. Isuggestible. Therefore, once experienced police
must also ask them about visual conditions such asinvestigators began being trained as forensic
light and darkness, fog or smoke, etc.hypnotists, the trend towards accepting such
Another set of factors involve the fact that witnessestestimony changed drastically. (The rivalry between
often do not see what they thought that they see.clinical psychologists and forensic hypnotists still exists.
This issue of visual attentiveness is a factor thatOne charge the psychologists make is that forensic
magicians use to create illusions due to misdirectedhypnotists are usually ill-equipped to handle abreactions.
attention. Witnesses are not immune to this problem.To the contrary, the truth is that most of the hypnotists
Speaking of illusions, witnesses generally tend to judgeare police officers who routinely handle more
the physical dimensions of objects in relation toabreactions in a year than most psychologists do in a
surroundings. For instance, the designers of Waltwhole career. Nevertheless, I attribute much of
Disney World in Orlando, used this concept to give thepsychologists pseudo-opinions against forensic
castle the appearance of being taller than it is. (Thehypnotist as due more to this professional rivalry than
City of Orlando requires all buildings over 250 feet toto scientifically derived opinions.)
have flashing red lights. To Disney designers, this wasNote that even in Alabama while rejecting hypnotically
unacceptable. So they built the castle just shy of theenhanced memories for years, courts recognized the
limit and used comparative illusions to make it appearuse of hypnosis as an investigative tool.
to be taller.)Still until 1987 there was no consistency among state
Witnesses also misjudge the speed of a movingcourts nationwide. Courts normally used the Frye Test
object based upon the distance from the observer.to avoid accepting such testimony. That year the U.S.
All of these factors call into question the accuracy ofSupreme Court ruled in the Rock case that the
a witness's perception. This means that perceptionArkansas Supreme Court was wrong for excluding
must be considered before discussing the factor ofhypnotically refreshed testimony as their action
memory."infringed on criminal defendant's right to testify on her
It is very disconcerting to trial lawyers that memoriesown behalf." Specifically, they cited that such testimony
will change over time. The statement made tohas the support of the Fourteenth Amendment, the
investigators (to include a forensic hypnosis interview)Sixth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. In the
near the time of an incident, normally has substantialmajority opinion, Justice Blackmon stated the Arkansas
changes by the time that a deposition or trial occurs.per se ruling against such testimony was not valid.
This is especially true when the witness is confrontedFurthermore, he stated that the interview was
with their original signed statement.conducted without undue suggestibility and that the
That there are sometimes drastic changes in witnesstestimony had been corroborated by other evidence.
statements cannot be denied. For instance, in 1974, aGenerally, the Rock ruling and subsequent case law
man in California was erroneously convicted on thestates that hypnosis interviews do not necessarily
basis of a testimony of seven eye witnesses whocreate a greater risk of confabulations than other
identified him as a bank robber. In another case in 1973,types of interviews and interrogation.
seventeen witnesses identified a man who hasCurrently every state in the U.S. accepts hypnotically
erroneously charged with shooting a police officer. Itrefreshed memories provided that the interview is
turned out that the man was no where in the vicinity ofconducted by a trained investigator, who is careful to
the shooting at that time.)avoid any techniques which may create a condition of
Experimental studies have also demonstrated thesuggestibility. Such interviews must be video recorded,
fallibility of the eyewitness. A simulated purse-snatching"head to foot" and "hello to good bye." Rules are
was staged before sixty-four witnesses. Forty-eight ofclearly laid out in post Rock case law and even in a
the witnesses attempted to identify the suspect fromTexas statute. Generally, the role of the psychologist
two videotaped lineups, one with and one without thehas been relegated to being the "expert witness" on
suspect. Only 13.5 percent made a positivethe opposing side. This "expert" must go up against
identification while the remainder either chose thecorroborating evidence to the contrary. According to
wrong man, made no identification, or impeachedDr. Martin Reiser of the LAPD Behavior Science
themselves by picking two men.Services unit, a study hypnotically refreshed memories
It is obvious that something drastic happens toshowed that 80% of the cases in which this technique
memories after the original event, unless of course, itwas used provided new information which led to either
was originally misperceived. It can be inferred thata conviction or opened up substantially new avenues
memory may change as a result of psychodynamicfor investigation.
defense mechanisms within one's own personality,Of course, I take great exception to David Myers
faulty reconstruction, or interference andpsychology textbook, which states that forensic
mis-associations. Two additional factors are imaginationhypnosis is out of favor. Based upon the information
and suggestion.that I've presented here (and extensive research that I
Retention and recall decreases in direct proportion tohave conducted) Myers is totally incorrect in his
time interval. The greater the time interval, the greaterstatements. Last week I had breakfast with Marx
the possibility there is of influence from the imagination.Howell while I was at a conference in Newport Beach,
Also, a person may be influenced by what theyCA. A retired Texas Ranger, a student of Dr. Reiser,
thought they saw. Then, explicit or implicit suggestionand the head investigator handling the Branch Davidian
may lead the witness to think they witnessedmassacre in Waco, he is the leading authority in this
something that was not seen. And, there is a distinctfield. He regularly conducts hypnosis interviews in the
possibility that a person can have a false memory ofU.S., Asia, and Europe. I told him about Myers'
an event. This hallucinated memory is called astatements. Based upon the numerous convictions as
confabulation.a result of his work in forensic hypnosis (and that of
Until several years ago courts struggled with thehis students - which includes FBI agents), we both
concept of suggestibility as a key factor in questioningshare the opinion about the text's inaccuracy.
the validity of hypnotically refreshed memories. ManyHowever, neither one of us were surprised. As I
psychologists (such as Drs. Diamond and Ohrne) havestated above, there are several psychologists that
testified as expert witnesses disputing the validity ofdispute the validity of forensic hypnosis. Their only
forensic hypnosis. Indeed, even today there arereasoning is based upon the same concept that calls
several respected clinical psychologists who haveinto question any and all eye witness testimony.
added their voices to the skeptics. Unfortunately, some(Memories enhanced by hypnosis is subject to all of
of my classmates have seen some of these articlesthe problems which I listed in the beginning of this reply.
and come to the unfounded opinion that hypnoticallyHypnosis merely aids in recall without enhancing the
refreshed memories are inaccurate (as compared toaccuracy.) Simply their unfounded opinions stand in the
other memories) and therefore inadmissible in theface of case law (including the U.S. Supreme Court
courts. Unfortunately, this is far from being true.rulings), the Texas statute, and a solid record of
After the 1950's there was a trend for courts to rejectconvictions. There is no valid research conducted by
hypnotically refreshed memories. Basically they firstpsychologists that specifically dispute forensic hypnosis.
misunderstood hypnosis. Until the late 1950's when the(By the way, I was trained by Investigator Howell and
American Medical Association and the AmericanDr. Jerome Beacham of the Detroit Police Department.
Psychological Association, hypnosis was the domain of