Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Psychological Vulnerability 509
intelligence, but abnormally compliant; he also possessed extremely poor selfesteem,
and was an emotionally labile (anxious) introvert. He proved to be only
moderately suggestible on the GSS 1. The very low score on the Gough Socialisation
Scale, combined with a high Psychoticism (P) score on the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ-R), suggested that Fell’s personality profile was consistent
with a diagnosis of personality disorder. I again interviewed Fell in 1993
at the request of his solicitors, and provided a detailed report, which included
further psychometric testing, which supported my previous findings, but found
that Fell’s self-esteem had improved somewhat over time. Background statements
from informants supported the psychometric finding of low self-esteem.
In 1998, I was asked by the CCRC to provide a further report and answer
questions relating to possible false memory, psychogenic amnesia and inducements
by the police. I concluded that there was no evidence of false memory or
psychogenic amnesia relating to the offences, but there appeared to have been
an inducement relating to a case for manslaughter as opposed to a conviction
for murder.
Following my report, the CCRC commissioned a psychiatric report from Professor
Michael Kopelman, a neuropsychiatrist with an interest in amnesia and
false confessions. He did not interview Fell, but reviewed all the relevant papers
in the case, including the police interview transcripts and my two psychological
reports. His conclusions corroborated my own findings. The Crown commissioned
a psychiatric report from Dr Philip Joseph, who interviewed Fell and
produced a report, which also cast doubts on the reliability of Fell’s confession.
Dr Joseph concluded that it was Fell’s personality disorder, accompanied by
poor self-esteem and attention seeking behaviour, which made him vulnerable
to making a false confession when interviewed by the police in 1983.
With regard to the expert evidence, the Court of Appeal judges stated:
So far as the psychological evidence was concerned statements had been provided
by Dr Gudjonsson and Professor Kopelman. These were before the commission.
The Crown obtained evidence from Dr Joseph. His conclusions were to the same
effect as those of Dr Gudjonsson and Professor Kopleman that the admissions were
unreliable.
As a result of the conclusions of the three experts Mr Fell applied for bail on
1 December 2000. The court granted the appellant bail and also gave leave,
unopposed by the Crown, for calling fresh expert evidence before the court. The
case was heard at the beginning of March 2001. Dr Joseph and I testified on
1 March. Our evidence was supported by the testimony of Dr Robin Illbert,
a prison doctor who had seen Mr Fell on a number of occasions after he was
remanded in custody at Winchester prison in 1983. At the time of seeing Mr Fell
in custody Dr Illbert viewed him as a ‘pathological confessor’ and experienced
anxieties about the reliability of his confession. Mr Fell had a documented
history of boasting and telling lies (e.g. he was known during his brief period
in the Army for making up stories; he also boasted of fighting in the Falklands
and claimed to be a boxing champion—he had a photograph taken of himself
with a boxing trophy, which he had had engraved). About two months prior to
the murders Mr Fell had been dishonourably discharged from the Army. He had
served in the Army between May 1978 and March 1982. Whilst in the Army he