Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-12-25
HYPNOTiSM AND CRIME.

nr. Liegois Explains to the Court and
Jury in the Eyraud Case in Paris the
Possibilities of the Use of Hypnotism in
in the Preparation of Crime - The
Court, However, Declines to Consent to
Public Test.
PARIS, Dec. 29.-When the court try
ing the case of Michael Eyraud, the
stranger, and his accomplice, Gabrielle
Eompard, for the murder of Touissant
t;ouffe, adjourned Thursday, it was
with the understanding that DIR. Liegois
should, at his request, give his testimo
ny in the presence of the court and jury
alone. Accordingly the public which
has hitherto thronged the court
room. was denied admission. DIR. Lie
gois, who is head of the medical faculty
OF the College of Nancy, and who mait-
talns the affirmative of the hypnotic
theory, was called Immediately upon
the opening of the days proceedings.
The doctor began his testimony by ex-
planning at considerable length that
hypnotized subject invariably lost all
will power, and became as an automaton
in the hands of the experimentalist A
person under the hypnotic influence,
DR.. Leigois said, could be impeled by
NIT crimes against which, when the
subjects mental faculties were in q
normal condition, his or her nature
would revolt. The witness then gave a
graphic description of how on one occa-
sion, after placing man under the hyp.
motto influence, he had handed him an
unloaded revolver and commanded him to
fire upon another person. The hyp-
Noticed subject believed that at the dog
tors suggestion he had committed MUIR
der. Another occasion the witness tes-
tilted that he had influenced a hyp-
Noticed subject to sign promissorv
note.
DIR. Liegeois declared it possible that
Gabrielle had received suggestion
whereof she retained no recollection
when restored to her normal self. To
effect this, however, it would have been
necessary to place her in an anBsthetic
condition. The prisoner ought to be
again mesmerized, in order to revive her
recollections of the crime while in that
condition. The witness pointed out
that according to the indictment the
circumstances were that Eyraud was
unable to put the woman to sleep. Yet
she proved amendable to the hypnotic
influence of Granger and revealed the
crime to him while hypnotized. The
witness declared that he would rather
cut his hand off than take the response
bility Of sentencing the woman under
such circumstances.
The procureur asked DIR. Liegeois
what means he employed to make sure
that the supposed hypnotic sleep was
genuine. The witness replied that
subject really under the hypnotic infiu.
ence evinced no sensibility to pain
when pricked with a pin
DIR. Brouardel was recalled and de-
clared that the opinions of the Nancy
Medical School, represented by DIR.
Liegeois were held in very small es-
TEEN by him. He was not in favor of
again hypnotizing Gabrielle, as he was
unwilling to take the risk of the audi.
ence hearing what revelations might be
surprised out of the woman.
Counsel for both Bompard and Ey-
raud requested that the female prisoner
be hypnotized in open court. The pro-
cureur objected, saying that it would
not aid in bringing out the truth. The
judges rejected the proposal
Counsel for Gouffe's relatives asked
the court to find both the prisoners
guilty.