Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 34
Despite a lack of evidence placing Kempinski at the scene of the crime or other proof that
he was one of the perpetrators, he was indicted and brought to trial. The second author of
this paper was consulted on this case and suggested that an ophthalmologist determine if it
was possible for the witness to make a facial identification of the assailant at night in poor
light at the distance of about 270 feet. By studying the weather charts and the available
light at the appropriate time of the evening, the ophthalmologist found that only relatively
inefficient vision registered by the rods of the retina was possible. Located toward the
periphery of the retina, the rods provide less ability than the cones to resolve visual detail
and are insensitive to color however, the rods retain some function under low light
conditions. Given the poor lighting conditions, the ophthalmologist stated that it would have
been impossible to resolve facial features at a distance of more than 30 feet. The witness
and assailant, however, were more than eight times that far away from each other.
Hypnosis created the witness‟s recollection of Kempinski long after the original event. Note
that the witness was not aware he was testifying about a hypnotic creation rather than real
memory. The certainty of his recall was absolute. This case illustrates why (1) hypnotically
influenced testimony should not be admitted in court, especially without independent
corroboration, and (2) a subject‟s posthypnotic assertions about the prehypnotic origin of a
memory are valueless unless accompanied by a written or videotape record made before
hypnosis.
State v. Mack (1980). David Mack met a young woman, whom we will call Carol, at a bar,
danced and drank with her, and took her to a local motel on his motorcycle. Later in the
evening Carol found herself bleeding from her vagina. Mack called for an ambulance, told
the drivers the couple had been engaged in sexual intercourse when Carol started bleeding,
and expressed concern about her. In the ambulance Carol, who was described as “quite
drunk,” insisted that the bleeding was not Mack‟s fault. At the emergency room Carol told
an intern she had been “engaged in sexual activity with fingers placed in her vagina.” A
second intern told Carol the injury could neither have occurred during intercourse nor been
caused by a human fingernail. She understood the second intern to say her vagina must
have been cut with a knife. Carol reported her experience to the police 2 days later, telling
them she could only remember waking in a pool of blood on the bed in the motel.
About 6 weeks after the alleged assault, the police made an appointment for Carol with a
self-taught, lay hypnotist. During hypnosis Carol remembered being forced to remove her
clothes and lie on the bed, after which she recalled Mack repeatedly sticking a knife into her
vagina as she screamed. However, the physical examination in the emergency room 6
weeks earlier revealed only a single, internal cut. If the events occurred as they were
remembered during hypnosis, multiple external and internal lesions would have resulted.
Other details of her posthypnotic description memory were also factually incorrect. Based on
these facts, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied admission of Carol‟s testimony and ruled
that a per se exclusion of hypnotically influenced testimony was required.
People v. Shirley (1982). Catherine was drinking in a bar near the Camp Pendleton
Marine base. Donald Shirley, a Marine who lived in a building near Catherine‟s apartment,
was also drinking in the same bar. A Marine sergeant with whom Catherine once cohabited
drove her home, but she passed out immediately and the sergeant left. Catherine claimed
her next memory was of waking to find Shirley standing naked near her holding a butcher
knife or a screwdriver. Catherine claimed Shirley then took her into the bedroom, bound
and gagged her, and had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her. After about 30
minutes, Shirley untied her, removed the gag, and took her back into the living room where
he turned on the lights. With both still naked, she sat in his lap on the couch and they
chatted for about 30 minutes. Shirley then asked her if she liked beer she said she did. He
put on his clothes and left her apartment building to get the beer. Catherine made no effort
to call for help or leave her apartment while Shirley was gone. When Shirley returned, he
Despite a lack of evidence placing Kempinski at the scene of the crime or other proof that
he was one of the perpetrators, he was indicted and brought to trial. The second author of
this paper was consulted on this case and suggested that an ophthalmologist determine if it
was possible for the witness to make a facial identification of the assailant at night in poor
light at the distance of about 270 feet. By studying the weather charts and the available
light at the appropriate time of the evening, the ophthalmologist found that only relatively
inefficient vision registered by the rods of the retina was possible. Located toward the
periphery of the retina, the rods provide less ability than the cones to resolve visual detail
and are insensitive to color however, the rods retain some function under low light
conditions. Given the poor lighting conditions, the ophthalmologist stated that it would have
been impossible to resolve facial features at a distance of more than 30 feet. The witness
and assailant, however, were more than eight times that far away from each other.
Hypnosis created the witness‟s recollection of Kempinski long after the original event. Note
that the witness was not aware he was testifying about a hypnotic creation rather than real
memory. The certainty of his recall was absolute. This case illustrates why (1) hypnotically
influenced testimony should not be admitted in court, especially without independent
corroboration, and (2) a subject‟s posthypnotic assertions about the prehypnotic origin of a
memory are valueless unless accompanied by a written or videotape record made before
hypnosis.
State v. Mack (1980). David Mack met a young woman, whom we will call Carol, at a bar,
danced and drank with her, and took her to a local motel on his motorcycle. Later in the
evening Carol found herself bleeding from her vagina. Mack called for an ambulance, told
the drivers the couple had been engaged in sexual intercourse when Carol started bleeding,
and expressed concern about her. In the ambulance Carol, who was described as “quite
drunk,” insisted that the bleeding was not Mack‟s fault. At the emergency room Carol told
an intern she had been “engaged in sexual activity with fingers placed in her vagina.” A
second intern told Carol the injury could neither have occurred during intercourse nor been
caused by a human fingernail. She understood the second intern to say her vagina must
have been cut with a knife. Carol reported her experience to the police 2 days later, telling
them she could only remember waking in a pool of blood on the bed in the motel.
About 6 weeks after the alleged assault, the police made an appointment for Carol with a
self-taught, lay hypnotist. During hypnosis Carol remembered being forced to remove her
clothes and lie on the bed, after which she recalled Mack repeatedly sticking a knife into her
vagina as she screamed. However, the physical examination in the emergency room 6
weeks earlier revealed only a single, internal cut. If the events occurred as they were
remembered during hypnosis, multiple external and internal lesions would have resulted.
Other details of her posthypnotic description memory were also factually incorrect. Based on
these facts, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied admission of Carol‟s testimony and ruled
that a per se exclusion of hypnotically influenced testimony was required.
People v. Shirley (1982). Catherine was drinking in a bar near the Camp Pendleton
Marine base. Donald Shirley, a Marine who lived in a building near Catherine‟s apartment,
was also drinking in the same bar. A Marine sergeant with whom Catherine once cohabited
drove her home, but she passed out immediately and the sergeant left. Catherine claimed
her next memory was of waking to find Shirley standing naked near her holding a butcher
knife or a screwdriver. Catherine claimed Shirley then took her into the bedroom, bound
and gagged her, and had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her. After about 30
minutes, Shirley untied her, removed the gag, and took her back into the living room where
he turned on the lights. With both still naked, she sat in his lap on the couch and they
chatted for about 30 minutes. Shirley then asked her if she liked beer she said she did. He
put on his clothes and left her apartment building to get the beer. Catherine made no effort
to call for help or leave her apartment while Shirley was gone. When Shirley returned, he
