The following needs to be completed by September 26th:

Read Chapter 5: Memory Enhanced and Retrieval Interviewing
Review Power Point Presentations for Chapter Gosselin_IIST2_PPT_05.pptx
Complete D4 Discussion
Watch this short video on Helping Eyewitness accounts through Forensic Hypnosis: What do you think about hypnosis in a criminal investigation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfTFRxLOQdQ
Review Chapter Summary below:

Chapter 5

“Forensic hypnosis remains a controversial evidence-gathering technique. Numerous court cases have provided guidance on its use and standards for admissibility as evidence. Hypnotically refreshed evidence should be utilized as a tool in the investigation and not as the sole source of information. Corroboration is necessary to support the information gathered through hypnosis.

Despite the controversy, hypnosis seems to be making a small comeback in recent years as a positive and reliable information-gathering tool.

Cognitive interviewing is the most respected form of criminal justice interviewing. Proper use of the memory-jogging techniques along with the overall atmosphere of cooperation has been shown to improve interviewing results. The use of cognitive interviewing increases the information recalled by a witness without increasing confabulation. It has successfully survived a court challenge. Cognitive techniques can easily be incorporated into any interviewing method that the investigator chooses to use, and this flexibility increases its potential use. It also works well for interviewing children.

The four approaches included in the Differential Recall Enhancement (DRE) category have been empirically tested and found to have creditability for forensic purposes. The common thread among these approaches is that they are cognitive-based approaches using memory-jogging techniques. All are assumed to be appropriate fact-gathering approaches which assume that the interviewee may be either truthful or deceptive. Each approach relies on verbal, rather than behavioral, cues for detecting deceit” (Gosselin and Shillings, 2019, p. 20).