Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Four High Profile American Cases 553
In spite of Mr Giarratano’s improvement since 1979, which seemed to be
related to regular meetings with Marie Deans since 1983 and abstinence from
drugs and alcohol, he was still left with a marked residual deficit in his memory
processing, which related to a strong tendency to confabulate. This was noted on
the free recall part of the GSS 1 and GSS 2. This deficit was subtle and possibly
not immediately apparent without specific testing, although it is worth pointing
out that a prosecution psychiatrist had made a reference to Giarratano’s confabulation
tendency at his trial in 1979. However, because everybody assumed
Giarratano’s confession to the Norfolk detectives was reliable the importance
of his vulnerability was not recognized.
Giarratano’s clearest vulnerability when I tested him related to his abnormal
tendency to fill gaps in his memory with confabulated material, that is, imaginary
experiences that he believed to be true. Even for material that he had
reasonable memory about, he confabulated. In my view, this was a problem
that related to how Giarratano had in the past learned to cope with gaps in his
memory. It was not possible to say whether or not his tendency to confabulate
resulted from his extensive substance abuse, but if it existed before that then
the substance abuse is likely to have exacerbated the condition very markedly.
Abstinence from substance abuse over a period of several years is likely to have
made him less prone to confabulation, even though he is still left with a very substantial
vulnerability, of which he and his lawyers appeared totally unaware.
A related problem to the confabulation was Mr Giarratano’s tendency to incorporate
post-event information into his memory recollection. In particular,
being asked specific questions, which he said helped him focus his mind and
improve his memory, markedly distorted his subsequent recollection without
his apparently being aware of it. On the surface, Giarratano appeared quite
resistant to suggestions. However, his resistance to suggestions was superficial
and he was far more suggestible than is immediately apparent. His susceptibility
to suggestions was probably mediated by his marked inability to detect
discrepancies between what he observes and what is suggested to him.
Did the findings of confabulation and suggestibility have any bearing
on the likely reliability or unreliability of the self-incriminating confessions
Giarratano made to the police in 1979? There was no doubt in my mind that
Giarratano’s confabulation and suggestibility tendencies seriously challenged
the reliability of the confessions he made to the police in 1979. As far as I was
concerned, the question of unreliability centred around Giarratano’s impaired
memory and specific vulnerabilities at the time of the police interviews. In
1979 his tendency to confabulate and his level of suggestibility were undoubtedly
much more marked than they are at present because of his extensive
substance abuse, distressed mental state and apparently very low self-esteem.
It was evident that sometime before the first police interview at about 3 a.m.
on Tuesday 6 February 1979 Giarratano had some knowledge about the two
murders. He certainly knew that the two women had been murdered. How he
obtained that basic information was not known. He told us that he woke up
in the flat and discovered the two women murdered, but claimed to have no
recollection of having actually committed the murders. Even the ‘memory’ of
having seen the bodies of the two women in the flat, which seemed very clear and