I'm late to this party...

And I can't bring beer, because I'm a Mormon.

As INCREDIBLY busy as I have been lately, it wasn't until today that I found out about the new book by Martha Nibley Beck, recently sponsored by O magazine.

First, let me be absolutely clear that I have not read the book, and am working from news articles and the responses of others. Particularly here. Apparently, in the book, Ms. Beck accuses her father (a well-respected LDS scholar who passed away earlier today) of having sexually abused her when she was about five years old. These accusations stem from "recovered memories" - memories that have been brought back to the surface through hypnosis.

Now, I have a B.Sc. in Psychology, and I'm going to law school, as a result of which, I know a little something about the reliability of statements made under hypnosis.

Hypnosis, almost by definition, is a state where a person becomes very susceptible to suggestion. Even suggestions that the hypnostist may not be aware of. In age regression, most often what we're seeing is the adult's perception of what a child would act like. John Kihlstrom, of U.C. Berkeley has this to say about age regression and hypnosis.

Age-regressed adults may have the subjectively compelling experience of being children again, and they may appear to behave in a childlike manner, but what we see is an imaginative reconstruction of childhood -- not a reversion to the genuine article.

His article concludes with this statement:

Interestingly, hypnosis appears incapable of expanding awareness, so as to enable subjects to remember things that would otherwise remain forgotten. However, the social context of hypnosis, including widely shared (though false) beliefs about its capacity for memory enhancement (with or without age regression), and the suggestive context in which hypnosis occurs in the first place, renders the hypnotized subject vulnerable to various kinds of distortions in memory. Because the risks of distortion vastly outweigh the chances of obtaining any useful information, forensic investigators and clinical practitioners should avoid hypnosis as a technique for enhancing recollection.

The instant I heard that Ms. Beck had come to these memories as the result of hypnosis, I felt comfortable in assuming that they were false. In my Psych classes, we found out how susceptible people are to suggestion when we learned that people who are under hypnosis will pick up on subtle cues such as voice tone and emphasis to give the hypnotist the answer they want. For example, let's say that I age regress my wife back to her fifth birthday (Note, I am not a hypnotist, nor do I play one on TV). August 21, 1980. Let's say that I know that the correct day of the week is Wednesday. I ask her what day of the week it is, and she doesn't answer immediately. Or maybe she answers "Tuesday", and I say, "wait a minute, was it Monday? Tuesday? Wednesday?" At which point, she'll stop me and assert that it was, in fact Wednesday, picking up on subtle vocal cues from me that Wednesday is the right answer. The only problem is, I'm wrong. As you can see August 21, 1980 was a Thursday. But she believes it's Wednesday, I have implanted that suggestion in her mind. I can't find any evidence to suggest that hypnosis increases the accuracy of memory.

Now then, turning to evidence as far as law. Courts can and will allow testimony that has been "refreshed" by hypnosis. However, typically speaking, that testimony has to be corroborated by other evidence. In Borawick v. Shay (68 F.3d 597 - You'll need a Lexis password to get there), the 2nd circuit adopted (followed by the First Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit in later opinions) a "totality of the circumstances" test.

In conducting a case-by-case analysis, the district court should consider the following non-exclusive list of factors. First, it should evaluate the purpose of the hypnosis: whether it was to refresh a witness's memory of an accident or crime or whether it was conducted as part of therapy. In the former instance, the subject may feel pressured to remember details, to aid the criminal investigation, whereas when the subject has undergone therapy to explore the sources of her psychological ailments, she may be less inclined to confabulate or describe a complete coherent story. In the latter case, however, the court should be mindful of the possibility that the subject may have received subtle suggestions from her therapist that abuse or other traumas could be at the root of her problems. Thus, a second important consideration is whether the witness received any suggestions from the hypnotist or others prior to or during hypnosis such as a theory of the cause of the subject's ailments or key information relevant to the investigation for which she underwent hypnosis. A third and related factor is the presence or absence of a permanent record, which can help the court ascertain whether suggestive procedures were used. Ideally, the session should be videotaped or audiotaped. Fourth, a court should consider whether the hypnotist was appropriately qualified by training in psychology or psychiatry. A fifth factor is whether corroborating evidence exists to support the reliability of the hypnotically-refreshed memories. Sixth, evidence of the subject's hypnotizability may also be relevant. A highly hypnotizable subject may be more prone to confabulate and more susceptible to suggestion. Seventh, the court should consider any expert evidence offered by the parties as to the reliability of the procedures used in the case. Finally, a pretrial evidentiary hearing is highly desirable to enable the parties to present expert evidence and to test credibility through cross-examination.

After consideration of all of the relevant circumstances, the trial court should weigh the factors in favor and against the reliability of the hypnosis procedure in the exercise of its discretion whether to admit the post-hypnotic testimony. Finally, we add that the party attempting to admit the hypnotically-enhanced testimony bears the burden of persuading the district court that the balance tips in favor of admissibility. Hurd, 432 A.2d at 97.

Borawick at 608, emphasis mine.

Dealing just with the factors I've emphasized, I don't believe that her testimony would be admissible evidence. Assuming that this was recovered under self-hypnosis, I think we have to doubt her qualifications as a hypnotherapist. As for corroborating evidence, I think the statement of her brothers and sisters - all of them, that the accusations of sexual abuse are not true, is telling. One sister shared a room and a bunk bed with her at the time the alleged abuse was supposed to be occuring. She also denies the accusations leveled by Ms. Beck.

This book also claims that "the incidence of sex abuse among Mormon families far exceeds any other group" (see here again). And I make a challenge here and now to anyone who can provide objective evidence that this is the case. I feel that statement is a vile, pernicious lie. Nor do I think that I'm without credibility in this area. My wife and I were licensed foster parents in Utah, and each of the girls that came to live with us had suffered some form of abuse. People aren't perfect, and there are instances of abuse in most, if not all populations. However, to make this kind of groundless assertion is dangerous, in that it fosters an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. As a member of the LDS church, and as the father of a daughter of my own, I do not have the words to express my disgust at the idea that I would abuse my child. I am insulted, and I do not insult easily.

h/t bird's eye view