SHOCKED Janet Holt has told how hypnosis revealed she KILLED a farmer who she believes raped her — more than 30 years ago.
Janet, 64, had buried the horrific memories until she went for therapy.
In 1976 Fred Handford, 56 — her business partner on the farm — vanished. Despite a huge police search he was never found.
Janet said the recollection was terrifyingly clear — she shot Fred after he twice raped her, then put his body in a wheelbarrow and buried him on their farm.
Janet was arrested and showed cops where she believed she buried the body. But after extensive searches of the 50-acre site, he was never found and she was released.
Then Janet heard of a form of psychotherapy called Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) — used to recall memories and eliminate trauma.
She said: “The therapy involved me trying to relive the lost four days and moving my eyes from side to side to stimulate the memories.”
After four hours, Janet believes she recalled everything.
However, the police has never found the body of Fred Handford, after thorough searching of the land and they have no evidence linking Janet Holt to the case other than her own testimony.
Regression therapy is bogus. You are more likely to manufacture memories than retrieve older ones in tact. There is not substantial evidence to back up Janet’s claim. This story is hype, the premise is nonsense and the therapist should be investigated. The truth can not be teased out of these “memories”. It is completely unreliable.
Here is some additional information on the EMDR therapy:
EMDR is controversial and although it is not an approved practice of the American Psychological Association (APA), it is not disapproved either. According to Pamela Willenz of the APA Public Affairs Office, the “APA rarely approves or disapproves of therapies. We don’t approve or disapprove of EMDR as a therapy. APA does recognize therapies and does recognize EMDR as a type of therapy. We offer CE credits for psychologists wanting to learn EMDR.” This practice of the APA to neither approve nor disapprove of therapies tells us more about the APA than it does about EMDR. It might be useful to consumers if the APA would at least distinguish between therapies proven to be effective and those that are controversial. One does not need to be an expert in anything to recognize that EMDR is a type of therapy.
The most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the extant literature is that EMDR is no more effective than standard treatments that rely on exposure to anxiety-provoking stimuli and is almost certainly effective because it happens to incorporate such exposure. In the words of Harvard psychologist Richard McNally, “What is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective.” Importantly, controlled data do not support the use of EMDR for anxiety disorders other than PTSD (e.g., phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder), mood disorders, sexual disorders, eating disorders, or psychotic disorders, although it is commonly used to treat the symptoms of these and other conditions.
It would be splendid if EMDR advocates could empirically support the exaggerated claims they put forth regarding the efficacy of EMDR treatment. Nevertheless, it is exceedingly clear that EMDR not only lacks the theoretical foundation necessary to be considered a scientific method, the empirical evidence supporting its efficacy are also flawed and inconsistent. EMDR has not yet been validated convincingly by any controlled study that any of its therapeutic effects are not due to random chance, or other aspects of the treatment (e.g., patient expectancy, placebo effect, etc.) besides the eye movement procedure (Lohr, Tolin, &d lilienfeld, 1998). Based on these and numerous other inconsistencies, it is without question that extreme caution is advised in the clinical application of EMDR. It is very clear that the theory and practice of EMDR falls well short of scientific standards.
Beware of this story. Beware of EMDR. And most of all, beware of anything printed by The Sun.