Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Psychological Vulnerability 505
committed the murder he would then have tried to reconstruct in his own mind,
perhaps with the assistance of the police interviewers, what could have happened.
The fact that Mr Gordon continued to make self-incriminating admissions after
he was charged and convicted is not surprising in view of: (a) his psychological
vulnerabilities; (b) the nature of the interrogation; and (c) the likely type of false
confession that we are dealing with (i.e. coerced–internalized). I have come across
other similar cases, including the recent case reported by Gudjonsson, Kopelman
and MacKeith (1999).
The pharmacological abreaction sessions administered by Dr Lewis has had two
potentially serious consequences for Mr Gordon’s case. Firstly, Dr Lewis’ testimony
to the jury sounds as if the abreaction test resulted in Mr Gordon being able to
recover some of his lost memory of the murder and that the drug had assisted in
getting Mr Gordon to tell the truth. This must have been very damaging to the
defence. In reality, such abreaction tests are highly unreliable and do not establish
the ‘truth’ (Gudjonsson, 1992). Therefore, the jury may have been misled by
Dr Lewis’ testimony. Secondly, it is quite possible, if not likely, that the abreaction
sessions contaminated Mr Gordon’s memory and made it more difficult for him
to differentiate real from false memories. This may have been part of the reason
why it took Mr Gordon such a long time to be fully convinced of his innocence (see
Gudjonsson, Kopelman and MacKeith, 1999, for a description of a similar case).
Outcome in the Court of Appeal
My psychological report was forwarded by the defence team to the Criminal
Cases Review Commission, who had to take a view as to its significance. They
commissioned a report of their own from Professor Michael Kopelman, a neuropsychiatrist,
with whom I had worked closely on other cases of disputed confessions,
including that of Andrew Evans.
Professor Kopelman focused mainly on the use by Dr Lewis of sodium
thiopentone and concluded:
In summary, I do not think that the diagnoses of schizophrenia, inadequate psychopath,
or spontaneous hypoglycaemia, put forward at the original trial, are now
acceptable: the evidence put forward in their support would not fulfil modern diagnostic
criteria. Secondly, the use of sodium thiopentone in a medico-legal setting
is extremely hazardous, as recent literature on false confession has indicated,
because erroneous memories are likely to arise and the subject is vulnerable to
suggestion unless the interview is very carefully conducted. Details and transcripts
concerning the interview under sodium thiopentone do not seem to have
been given to the Court, and Dr Lewis certainly did not provide any caution to the
Court about the interpretation of his findings from this interview. I concur with
Professor Gudjonsson that such interviews are highly unreliable, and, in this case,
the interview may even have inculcated false memories into Mr Gordon’s mind.
In this connection, it is notable that Mr Gordon’s confession is replete with qualification
words, as if he were not at all confident about what he was recounting.
In light of this, I agree with Professor Gudjonsson’s opinion that the confession
appears to be unreliable.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission subsequently referred the case back to
the Court of Appeal in Belfast. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought the
services of a clinical psychologist, Mr Hanley, who did not interview Mr Gordon