Admissable Hypnosis

I am feeling righteous this morning, and the caffeine in the tea seems to be inciting it. Why?

It appears that in South Carolina, a judge is going to allow the prosecutors to present evidence in the form of tape from a hypnosis session. The case is the murder of Stephanie Dover, who was shot on I-20. Her fiancé was driving her and their two children home, when another vehicle (a black truck) shot at them, killing Stephanie.

After a year, John Joseph Moore is standing trial for the murder. He claims that someone in Stephanie's car made an obscene gesture at him (guess he was there then).

Hypnosis comes into this to see if Derrick, Stephanie's fiancé can remember the license tag of the truck through regression hypnosis. And though the judge says in his 17 years he has not seen hypnosis in his courtroom, he will allow it. Apparently there was the usual argument against it from the defense attorneys that it should not be admissible. Blah, blah, blah.

Perhaps the judge is allowing it because they already have the defendant? Would not the fact that Moore said the murder occurred due to that idea that someone in Stephanie's car made a gesture at him?

I guess he has not been proven guilty yet. But aside from the hypnosis interest, what is the deal with the road rage idea? So what if he had a flash of road rage? Does that make it okay? Does that mean that it is an acceptable excuse to kill another person? Have we sunk so low in our humanity that this should even be a factor?

I know there are lawyers rolling there eyes at this post, but you know, if you are going to debate hypnosis, I can blog about court cases.

Source: Wistv.com