Hypnosis testimony use 'a risk'

The Modesto Bee ^ | Sept 10, 2003 | John Cote'

[runningbear]

Hypnosis testimony use 'a risk'

Hypnosis testimony use 'a risk'

By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER

Published: September 10, 2003, 04:50:01 AM PDT

Investigators handling the double-murder case against Scott Peterson used an increasingly rare and legally risky tactic by interviewing a witness using "hypnosis techniques," legal observers said Tuesday.

"They're taking a risk," said Dr. David Spiegel, associate chairman of psychiatry at Stanford University. "There must be some reason why they want to take that risk."

The jeopardy stems from a state law passed in 1984 that severely restricts the use of information from a hypnotized witness at trial -- including limiting the testimony to matters the person recalled before the hypnosis.

The law was in response to a 1982 California Supreme Court ruling saying that "most experts agree that hypnotic evidence is unreliable because a person under hypnosis can manufacture or invent false statements."

Since the 1984 law, hypnotism largely has been shelved in criminal investigations, but it's sometimes used when police run out of leads, observers said.

"If you hit a dead end, you might come up with some facts that would help you," said Roger C. Park, an evidence law specialist at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

An example would be a kidnap victim who under hypnosis remembers details such as riding in a car driven on a gravel road and then over a bridge, Park said.

"You go there and find some evidence, and then you don't need that testimony," Park said. "That's what you're hoping during the investigation."

But prosecutors handling Peterson's case indicated in court last week that they intend to introduce testimony from a Modesto woman who appears to have been hypnotized.

Kristen Dempewolf, who lives in Peterson's La Loma neighborhood, was questioned in a "cognitive interview where hypnosis techniques were used," according to documents prosecutors filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

Dempewolf was questioned as police probed the disappearance and death of Peterson's pregnant wife, Laci.

Dempewolf, 33, owns a dog and was in roughly the same stage of pregnancy as Laci Peterson when Peterson was reported missing Christmas Eve.

Two witnesses have said they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog after 9:30 a.m. Dec. 24 -- the time her husband told police he left for a solo fishing trip.

Scott Peterson told police Laci was preparing to walk the couple's golden retriever, McKenzie, when he left for San Francisco Bay, and he returned from the trip to find his wife missing.

Prosecutors contend that he killed his wife and unborn son, Conner, on Dec. 23 or Dec. 24. Their bodies were found in April along the eastern shore of the bay, within four miles of where Scott Peterson said he launched his boat Christmas Eve. The 30-year-old fertilizer salesman faces the death penalty if convicted of two counts of murder.

Testimony could be key for prosecution

Dempewolf could be key to the prosecutors' case if she offers an alternative explanation for witnesses who say they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog Dec. 24.

But if Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Al Girolami determines that the hypnosis techniques amount to hypnotism, strict conditions will have to be met for her testimony to be admissable in court.

Testimony must be limited to matters the witness recalled and related before the hypnosis, and the substance of the pre-hypnotic memory must be preserved in written, audiotape or videotape form before the hypnosis.

The law also requires that the hypnosis be performed by a licensed professional experienced in hypnosis, such as a medical doctor or psychologist, and not done in the presence of law enforcement, the prosecution or the defense.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos indicated in court that the interview had been videotaped, but it is unclear from prosecution documents who used hypnosis techniques on Dempewolf.

Prosecutors also would have to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" at a hearing that the hypnosis did not make the witness's earlier recollection unreliable or "substantially impair" the ability to cross-examine the witness.

Interviewer may lead subject

Hypnosis subjects are susceptible to suggestions -- even subconscious ones -- by their questioner, said Dr. Emily Keram, a forensic psychiatrist at the University of California at San Francisco.

"It's natural for a person to be helpful, and they're prone to give the wrong answers," Keram said. "There may be a question where the interviewer inadvertently demonstrates their need and leads the subject to report things in an effort to address those cues."

Hypnosis, which induces deep relaxation, is effective in reducing ......

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson's ex-girlfriend sticks close to home

Amber Frey

Peterson's ex-girlfriend sticks close to home

By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER

Published: September 6, 2003, 10:02:24 AM PDT

The woman who admitted having an affair with Scott Peterson is being protected by private guards and now lives in a gated community with round-the-clock security, her father said Friday.

"She hardly goes out now," said Amber Frey's father, Ron Frey. "She goes to work. She's got to live, but she mostly stays home."

Amber Frey, now 28, burst into the public spotlight in January when she announced that she had had an affair with Peterson, saying that he had told her that he was not married.

Peterson's 27-year-old pregnant wife, Laci, had been reported missing Christmas Eve in Modesto. Her body and that of the couple's unborn son, Conner, were found in mid-April along the eastern shoreline of San Francisco Bay.

Peterson, 30, was arrested several days later and charged with two counts of murder in the deaths. He could receive the death penalty if convicted.

Ron Frey said he was concerned for his daughter's safety after she became ensnared in a case that plays across tabloid news racks and cable television news shows.

"What good would it do to put her in witness protection? Everybody knows her," Frey said. "Sure there's security. I cannot account for the police, whether they've got people involved or not."

Modesto police said Frey cooperated with their investigation, and court documents show that officers tapping Peterson's phones monitored a call between her and Peterson on the night of Jan. 20, almost a month after Laci Peterson was reported missing.

Prosecutors and Gloria Allred, the attorney representing Frey, have declined to say if the Fresno massage therapist will testify at Peterson's preliminary hearing, now set for Oct. 20.

But Ron Frey said his daughter was dismayed after the hearing was pushed back earlier this week.

"She's anxious for this to be over," he said. "She was very ........

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GPS use on Peterson in question

GPS use on Peterson in question

By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER

Published: September 5, 2003, 05:05:13 AM PDT

The use of electronic devices by investigators to track Scott Peterson's movements was an unorthodox move, observers said Thursday.

Prosecutors intend to introduce evidence from a global positioning system tracking device, Senior Deputy District Attorney Rick Distaso said at a hearing this week.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos countered that he would seek to have the evidence excluded, indicating that there were problems with the GPS equipment.

The issue is likely to be hashed out at an Oct. 20 hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to put Peterson on trial on charges of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and the couple's unborn son, Conner.

Authorities used "wiretaps on phones, tracking vehicles, all of the technology available" as they probed Peterson's death, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said at a news conference April 18 the day that her husband was arrested in La Jolla.

Peterson, 30, could receive the death penalty if convicted of both murder counts.

His wife was almost eight months pregnant when she was reported missing Christmas Eve. Her body and that of her son were found in mid-April along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay, several miles from where her husband said he went fishing Dec. 24.

During a four-month probe, investigators employed a range of tactics, including "hypnosis techniques" on a witness.

Police also attached a tracking device to Peterson's pickup, Lockyer said at the April news conference.

Such tracking equipment usually is employed by state and federal law enforcement in major drug cases, according to experts.

"The fact that they used one in this case shows law enforcement were being very resourceful," said James Hammer, San Francisco assistant district attorney. "They were doing things that are not particularly done in a homicide case."

Most police and sheriff's departments do not have the budgets for tracking equipment, Sacramento County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Sharon Chow said.

"That's out of our league," Chow said. "Tracking devices for vehicles are very expensive."

It is unclear what evidence the tracking devices produced. Authorities and the defense have successfully sealed most documents in the case, and Judge Al Girolami has imposed a gag order preventing the parties from talking about evidence.

Tracking devices could serve the prosecution if they show that Peterson returned to the bay, tie him to a location where physical evidence was found or indicate that he was preparing to flee the country, Hammer said.

"If he's going back to the bay to make sure nothing floated up, that he didn't leave anything behind, that would help a prosecution theory," Hammer said.

But prosecutors will have to demonstrate that the tracking evidence is relevant to the case and that the equipment worked properly, some observers said.

"If he went to Mexico, so what? He came back," veteran ..........

(reposting this article).....

[Devil_Anse]

(And I'm going to keep repeating that post till he tells us what he said!)

[STOCKHRSE]

"It's about time some crackerjack Prosecutor made him look as foolish as a lot of his demonstrations and slaughtered English explanations are!! I"

Well,what do you think they have tried to do every time he has testified for the last 30 years!!!...Duhhh?

Speaking of looking foolish, Come back after he testifies and show us Scientifically where Dr Lee went wrong. You will be famous! Somehow Me thinks "fameass" will be a more apropos description...;-)

Please! Put your brain in gear before you put your mouth(keyboard) in motion.....

LINK:http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:SFKWIpPWOG4J:www.revenuerecoveryforensics.us/drlee.html+Dr+Henry+Lee&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Dr. Lee has authored or co-authored 20 books; major chapters and reports; and has published approximately 300 articles in professional journals.

"He has served as chairman and director on national and international committees in law enforcement, forensic science, criminal justice education and training; and has conducted and instructed over 800 workshops/seminars.

"He is one of the most popular instructors in crime scenes, forensic evidence and criminal investigation in the law enforcement field. "Dr. Lee has assisted law enforcement agencies and investigated 6,000 major investigations and cases around the world.

"He has testified over 1,000 times in both criminal and civil cases.

He serves as a consultant for over 300 police and law enforcement agencies.

"He has served as an expert witness in many high profile investigations and national and internationally known cases."

[SNIP]

Dr Henry Lee is referenced individually 1,100,000 times on "GOOGLE" Internet Search Engine. IMO over 90%+/- of those are positive.

IMHO, Dr Henry Lee is the most ethical most "tell it like it is" Forensic expert in the country. He has world class scienific ability in his field and his "demonstration" method of communicating scientific facts to a jury or audience is tried and proven and is in constant demand.

Of course, those who would conceal or twist facts to gain a conviction or wrongfully free a guilty suspect,sometimes his own clients, get irritated and hate to see him take the witness stand b/c they know he lets the "chips fall where they may" no matter who gets hurt or helped.

"He slammed his fist down on the board and of course the liquid flew up on the screen. His dramatic statement: "See the Bluh spattr - somezing not right"!! For THAT idiocy he was likely paid thousands of dollars. The Jury, most of whom were so stupid......"

CO, your diatribe notwithstanding, Dr Lee's reputation appears to be on "terra firma". If either of you is spouting "idiocy" IMO it is not the good doctor

Everyone is entitled to an opinion,IMHO, but you come on a supposedly serious conservative crime forum and call the worlds most eminent expert in his field an idiot and a common prostitute....In fact the whole field is just a bunch of prostitutes;or so you say! Further, you don't even bother to qualify the statements as your opinion! Or in the alternative offer even the slightest corroboration or published professional reference to substantiate your diatribe. BTW, "diatribe" is a decent way to make your point, but you must CYA with qualification or corroboration....;-)

Further you show your lack of class and your rudeness by your bigoted statements describing Dr Lee's speech qualities or lack thereof. However, IMO, this is the only part of your rash ramblings that has the slightest basis in fact whatsoever, albeit handled poorly.

IMHO it is mindless, ill researched, and emotionally frutrated sounding posts, such as your current effort, that turn serious minded posters off. I mean, I think we have a responsibility to the lurking public and to ourselves to be reasonably accurate with our posts. This is necessary to preserve the intellectual integrity and credibility of the thread. IMO to call Dr Henry Lee an idiot esspecially without evidentary foundation or qualification only serves to show your own ignorance.....IMHO I think you are much much more intelligent than that. Well, more intelligent anyway!....;-)

Post what you want CO,speech is free here, but stop being surprised when you look around and most of the posters are somewhere else!!!!!A word to the wise is sufficient. . OKKKKKKKK. ....... ;-)

"I would LOVE to know where to email Dr. Lee. I have looked but not come up with an actual way to contact him through email. Isn't it about time that "Professional" Forensic Pathologists and Criminologists were called on the Prostitution of their knowledge?"

Co, try this:agencyinfo@bellsouth.net

Yeah..Yeah!!! Why not, wear yourself out! Careful though, people elsewhere may not be as tolerant as we are :)..... But remember CO,in America people can't be forced to work without pay and we intend to keep it that way. Also knowledge and information are "marketable" commodities in a free republic society and their value is determined accordingly. Geez!! ya know, I don't think we've tortured even one expert witness for his/her knowledge in years!!!...:_)

OH yeah! Don't forget to call them "crazy" "stupid" "Idiots",in your email, as is your custom whenever someone or group disses with you....IMO That really shows 'em watcha made of!!.RIGHT?...No way. Chill a bit, Luv,and IMO people will take you more seriously ....

Ray

[landerwy]

It hasn't gone to trial yet. But I can tell you this ....

[Canadian Outrage]

Did you see the transcript of his antics in the Courtroom in the Michael Peterson case? Blondee123 posted them for me. After you have read something like that then give me a tongue lashing if it's warranted. I know he has good credentials - not disputing his credentials. Unfortunately he has become too full of himself. I will see if I can find the URL. If I am showing my lack of class and being bigoted and rude by referencing his fractured English then I have a lot of company on the Peterson Threads. Bottom line: I am quite surprised at your inappropriate rant.!!

[STOCKHRSE]

"Did you see the transcript of his antics in the Courtroom in the Michael Peterson case?"

I have read the article. That is what he does. That is how he teaches(yes teaches) the jury and holds their attention. He acts the same way now as he did 20 years ago. THAT IS HIS SCHTICK.

But you know what I think, my friend? I think if Dr Lee was testifying for the proseution in the Peterson trials you would love him and his accent. Am I correct? BE HONEST NOW!....;-)

Ray

[Canadian Outrage]

Ray, I don't challenge any of Dr. Lee's phenomenal knowledge and expertise in his area. I don't know if you read the same part as was transcribed to me. It was terrible and even the CourtTV reporters made comment as to such. They said he was unprepared, kept saying "it wasn't my job", He admitted he had viewed none of the actual evidence, he made jokes about inappropriate things. I can't remember by heart but I will write it down and post it to you. They reported that he was several times flustered. Had to admit that his take was only supposition and could not really be proven. On and On. It shocked me. I did not respect his testimony in the Simpson case. Yes, he can be likeable and he is obviously a teacher and so probably does use cards and demonstrates his points. However in the Simpson case, his bottom line was that little demonstration which said Nothing of value. He clearly tries to endear himself with the Jury. That's fine too. I just felt in the Simpson case that I would have had a tremendous amount of respect for him if he had just refused to testify. He really didn't add any specific medical or crimonology substance by his statements. It was just speaking to a Jury that was prepared to buy anything anyway and saying Something is not right means What?. As to his broken English. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that a man as intelligent as him and who has been in the USA for such a long time, really should speak better English. It is often difficult to listen to him. Some of my words such as stupid were not meant in reference to his intelligence. Perhaps the broken English is part of the SCHTICK, I don't know. I am sure he's done a great job in many cases. But you know Ray, when a mortal man is constantly put on a pedestal and puffed up all the time - is it not possible for that mortal man to become a little full of himself?? I think it is. I do know, and appreciate, that Cyril Wecht was been hired by the Defense in a big case, flew across the Country to examine the evidence, refused to testify because he did not agree with what was expected for him to say, and flew all the way back and refused the fee. NEVER at any time, have I ever suggested that anybody working in these cases should not be paid. I don't know where you got that impression. I usually appreciate your posts Ray, but I was sincerely shocked at your postto me a couple of days ago. I wasn't quite sure why you chose me to lash out at, the thread was full of the same thing from others. Perhaps I just stepped on your last nerve, I don't know. In any event, let's just forget it. Lynn

[Canadian Outrage]

One more thing. If he were testifying for the Peterson case and told the truth I would LOVE him - I can't say I would Love his accent. I work in the Law and I do know how some of the games are played. I really really respect those who view the "evidence", test the evidence, keep and open mind and be prepared to testify truthfully and Not manipulatively. Regardless of where the chips may fall. HONEST!!

[Devil_Anse]

Ray, I gotta tell ya, CO can trash Geragos to her heart's content, and it could never be as bad as what I think of him, that knee-padded, slimy, Clinton-loving, shifty-eyed, traveling-medicine-show #####!!

Yeah, I know he's got a job to do, and yeah I know he makes lots of money, but I still find him abhorrent.

Where'd he get his law license? Schwegmann's??

The above is my opinion! I have no personal knowledge of Geragos, thank heaven! And I wasn't in Schwegmann's when he musta got his license dere! (Did he pick up some Hubig's pies on the way out?)

You can like him, Ray, and I don't hold it against you cause you da man.

CO, I'm betting that whatever Lee might testify in Scott's trial (if he does), the truth will still come out. Hope Scott's ready for that!

[STOCKHRSE]

Hi Luv. thanks for your post. Uhhh,I don't dislike Geragos I srongly dislike the Liberal POE, But I won,t say that every day cause once ah get started I loose objectivity, in fact ah may take his side on a. point in the case just to make another person think or if I think he happens to be right on the point. I, give him his due to keep it kinda balanced sometime(I wish I could give 'em all I think he has comin)!!!!! I don't care fer AHSP but If they don't have a case when the time comes we gotta let him go IMHO. Chit Don't worry,if he killed her, in time he'll get his. I can almost guarantee that!IMO he's got a partner somewhere and he/she is wantin money he ain't got and he can't go to dad and mom cause then they will know and that will be his ass.

You hit the nail on the head about CO just don't tell her I said solol, She was wondering why I picked her, she doesn't know that means I think she is capable of so much much more. Go look at #i67 she posted, looks like you are I wrote thatdamn thing.
We gonna be just fine, and if we ain't we will regardless..doncha know we related fa chryst sake!....;-0)

Lemme go now all of a sudden ma emails are stacking up and ya know how slow I am....I'm so pathetically slow ah gotta go full speed just to go backwards...;-)

Tanks again Luv

Ray






i

[STOCKHRSE]

Ok CO, Now I have about 50 articles about MP trial and blondee sent me that "yellow" piece she found.

Dr Lee is a member of a "DEFENSE TEAM" and is at that trial to give his "OPINION" only, regardng one major point and one major point only:Judging from your vast knowledge of forensics and blood behavior and inspecting the blood evidence remaining at the alledged crime scene scene: Is it likely that Katleen Peterson was beaten to death "in the manner" the prosecution theorizes and if so how likely? Be prepared to support your opinion to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, if nedessary. IMHO that or something very akin to it is his charge.

Dr. Lee's answer. "It is possible but very very improbable b/c..............." He said the rest was not his job b/c that was exactly the right answer. If he knew the answer, as I suspect to some questions he did he still would not have answered. He is far too smart to let a two bit DA trap him into testifing about information outside of his charge by the head of the defense,unless,in his opinion, it would change the proper outcome of the trial.


Yes opinion is exactly what experts provide and only opinion,and the DA knew this, anything else the DA asked was to obfuscate, and it appears it worked in some cases Court TV included(ray is not surprised by this b/c it makes for viewer interest and they must have both sides view to survive).


AS usual Dr.Lee hit a home run with his testimony. In some cases in court testimony, it's not only what is said that counts but what is not said. Remember, trial is a war and all wars have two sides. IMHO the verdict will reflect Dr Lee's wisdom, IF not the appeal will.

FWIW:FYI
Dr.Lee testifies for the prosecution 95% of the time.

Only when he sees extenuating circumstances does he testify for the the defense. In regards to O.J. I could not understand the O.J. testimony b/c I could not follow it. The other day I heard Dr.Lee say that Blood thinner found in the blood on the gate proved it did not come from the body but another vessel and as a result the case was lacking integrity to convict. Note: he did not say OJ was innocent.

"I wasn't quite sure why you chose me to lash out at, the thread was full of the same thing from others. Perhaps I just stepped on your last nerve, I don't know. In any event, let's just forget it. Lynn"

It wasn't you I was challenging so much as that post itself.If you had put "IMO" at the beinning or the end or otherwise qualified your statements, I would not have said one word except maybe give an alternate opinion, but probably not even that b/c well just because I was't posting right then I don't think, I don't really remember.


I will stand corrected,but IMO you or anyone else has ever seen me ridicule an opinion. I may argue the other side and try to change their mind but that is it. A person has a right to their opinion whatever it may be and I take that very seriously.

Likewise when someone uses our blessed "Freedom of speech" to assail and degredate unfoundedly, without qualification. I will challenge them with all energy and resources at my disposal. Some may find that overbearing....TOUGH

Remember, we can think anything we want about somebody and we can say that we think that way about them. We do not get the right to say what we think is true unless we can back it up in court AND public forum. THERE ARE LAWS.

Now that this has happened, I know there is neither a vicious nor defamating bone in your body and I will challenge anyone who says differently without qualification. HONEST LUV...;-)

As far as I am concerned,my friend, It's finished business "IMHO"...;=)