<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Solving Crimes By Hypnosis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/04/25/solving-crimes-by-hypnosis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/04/25/solving-crimes-by-hypnosis/</link>
	<description>Yesterday's tomorrow, today.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eliyahu</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/04/25/solving-crimes-by-hypnosis/#comment-1056905</link>
		<dc:creator>Eliyahu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:28:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/?p=4311#comment-1056905</guid>
		<description>Hypnosis has subsequently been barred from courtrooms, and cases have been reversed where witnesses were hypnotized.  This was done because it's been demonstrated that hypnotized subjects are extremely suggestible, and they tend to recall whatever the questioner suggested to them. 

"The hypnotic suggestion to relive a past event, particularly when accompanied by questions about specific details, puts pressure on the subject to provide information for which few, if any, actual memories are available. This situation may jog the subject's memory and produce some increased recall, but it will also cause him to fill in details that are plausible but consist of memories or fantasies from other times. It is extremely difficult to know which aspects of hypnotically aided recall are historically accurate and which aspects have been confabulated.

Orne, THE USE AND MISUSE OF HYPNOSIS IN COURT, 27 Int'l J. of Clinical &#38; Experimental Hypnosis 311, 317-18 (1979). 

See also, State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 684 P.2d 651, holding, "Absent general scientific acceptance of hypnosis as a reliable means of refreshing recollection, the dangers and possibilities of prejudice should preclude admission of evidence based upon it."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hypnosis has subsequently been barred from courtrooms, and cases have been reversed where witnesses were hypnotized.  This was done because it&#8217;s been demonstrated that hypnotized subjects are extremely suggestible, and they tend to recall whatever the questioner suggested to them. </p>
<p>&#8220;The hypnotic suggestion to relive a past event, particularly when accompanied by questions about specific details, puts pressure on the subject to provide information for which few, if any, actual memories are available. This situation may jog the subject&#8217;s memory and produce some increased recall, but it will also cause him to fill in details that are plausible but consist of memories or fantasies from other times. It is extremely difficult to know which aspects of hypnotically aided recall are historically accurate and which aspects have been confabulated.</p>
<p>Orne, THE USE AND MISUSE OF HYPNOSIS IN COURT, 27 Int&#8217;l J. of Clinical &amp; Experimental Hypnosis 311, 317-18 (1979). </p>
<p>See also, State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 684 P.2d 651, holding, &#8220;Absent general scientific acceptance of hypnosis as a reliable means of refreshing recollection, the dangers and possibilities of prejudice should preclude admission of evidence based upon it.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
