Thursday, November 15, 2007

The Verdict

Time is quickly flying by this morning. I have already burned my mouth on a hot tea cup and I should think about dragging the iron out (but I don't want to, so I won't). I always tell myself I will not see clients first thing in the morning, but then I read somewhere that doing regression work and such is best early in the day. At this point I almost would rather substantiate that and sit here in my bathrobe for another hour or two, but alas, that is not to be. And I am as ever, grateful to have the client.

Just thought I would leave with the verdict in a trial from Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Perhaps you have been keeping up with this (or remember our conversations from this past summer), about an appeal from a 2003 murder trial of three Mount Lebanon men. One of the men contended that his little brother had been hypnotized (by their mother) to testify against him. This little brother received immunity for testifying.

Yesterday, a state appeals court upheld the original judge's decision that the witness had not been hypnotized.

Source: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review


Anonymous said...

Good news for the prosecution, I suppose, but bear in mind that the ruling only says that the witness wasn't hypnotized. I'd be happier to see a ruling that even if he was, that doesn't automatically invalidate his testimony.

There is so much potential for help in well-audited forensic hypnosis that it's unfortunate so few states are willing to allow it.

-Michael Raugh, C.H.

The Transparent Hypnotist said...

I agree with you. Here is an except from another article about the hypnosis in this trial:

"An expert witness for the defense testified on Tuesday that no special training is necessary and that she believes without question that Matthew Henkel was hypnotized by his mother.

'She read a valid book to learn how to do it,' said hypnosis expert Robbie Greenfield. 'She practiced it. She's had it done to herself. And considering all that, she'd be able to use it for someone else.'

Diane Henkel is a registered nurse who says she learned some relaxation techniques in school.

'You'd have to really know what you were doing,' said Greenfield. 'And I don't think she knows enough to know what she was doing to do something like that.'"

I fin this odd. It sounds like Greenfield is totally unclear. She could have hypnotized him. She couldn't have hypnotized him. It is not clear to me if this is saying that anyone who reads a book on hypnosis and practices can do it or if only professionals can do what she was accused of doing. Am I missing something?