crime scene, comes from someone other than the suspect; but that other person hasthe same genotype at the tested loci, that is an identical ‘DNA profile’ to the suspect.)

Remarkably, the rise of DNA as a gold standard (a rise that Truth Machine analysesso well), has led to the questioning of that previous stalwart of forensic science, thelatent fingerprint and (by extension), the kind of ‘traditional’ forensic science that theHandbook of Firearms and Ballistics describes. Granted, DNA profiling may lead todebate concerning the correct way of calculating random match probability (forexample, how to take into account differences in sub-populations) but the simple factof being able to calculate random likelihoods has made expert witness fingerprintcomparison somehow feel less scientific.

Truth Nachine can be warmly recommended, not only to those studying forensicinvestigation or forensic science; it is important enough to deserve wider readership.

ROBIN BRYANTDirector of Criminal Justice Practice,Department of Law and Criminal Justice Studies,Canterbury Christ Church University,Canterbury.

Offenders’ Memories of Violent Crimes S.A. Christianson (Ed.). Chichester: Wiley (2007)380pp. d80.00hb ISBN 978-0-470-01507-0 d31.99pb ISBN 978-0-470-01508-7

The stated purpose of this anthology of essays written by an international sample of(mostly) forensic psychologists is to supplement the already existing literature onvictims’ and witnesses’ memories of violent crimes, which have been relativelyextensively investigated, with a volume that would, for the first time, provide acomprehensive review of current theory and research on the memories of theperpetrators of those crimes. As such, this volume is a welcome corrective to the, all toofrequent, tendency on the part of scientific investigators of the psychology of violentbehaviour to pay attention only to the experience of victims and witnesses whileignoring the psychology of perpetrators. The editor is a forensic psychologist affiliatedto Stockholm University and the Sundsvall Forensic Psychiatric Hospital.

The unifying theme of the book is the attempt to distinguish between malingerers,true amnesiacs (both dissociative or psychogenic, and neurological, such as theamnesia following brain concussions), confabulators, false confessors, and validreporters of the crime committed.

The strength of this book, which is also (as is usually the case) its weakness, is itscomprehensiveness – the fact that although every chapter deals in one way or anotherwith the same subject, it approaches that subject from so many different points of view,with so many different audiences in mind, and with so many different, and sometimescontradictory, conclusions reached, that it is difficult to arrive at any clear-cutconclusions by the time one has finished reading it, or to be able to summarise anycentral thesis as emerging from it. That is a strength of the book insofar as its purposeis to present a comprehensive review of the present state of research on this subject,the wide variety of approaches taken, purposes pursued, and conclusions reached;and it is also, to some extent, an unavoidable limitation of it, since it is grappling withthe central epistemological problem of all psychology, including forensic psychology,which is that it is never possible to know for certain what is going on, or has gone on, inanother person’s mind (let alone one’s own).

However, at the risk of over-simplifying, one can summarise a few generalconclusions on which there appears to be a consensus (though never a unanimousone). A repeated finding is that a substantial minority of perpetrators of violent crimes

91r 2010 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 49 No 1. February 2010ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 87–95

report amnesia for the crime itself (although not usually for the events leading up tothe violent act and the events following it), especially if the crime was homicide, andcommitted in a state of extreme emotional arousal (rage, jealousy, etc.) toward a victimwho was emotionally important to the perpetrator. Also, people who report amnesiafor a murder may be at increased risk of committing murder again in the future. Sincethose who claim amnesia in this way do not generally deny their guilt, and it cannot, inany case, decrease their criminal responsibility as judged by the legal system, thesedescriptions of amnesia seem at least plausible, if not always (or ever) certain. Amnesiais reported less commonly the more the violence was ‘instrumental’, that is, planned,and goal-directed toward some purpose other than the violence itself, against victimswho are of little personal significance to the offender, by an individual with apsychopathic personality. Malingering, of course, also occurs (that is, deliberatelymaking a false claim of amnesia, in an attempt to avoid conviction for a murder),especially in this latter group, but so does false confessing (which may occur under avariety of circumstances), and the forensic psychologist’s formidable task, which thisbook addresses, includes that of developing techniques enabling us to distinguishbetween the objective truth and both of those forms of distortion of it.

One question about which there can be little doubt, however, is that the field of forensicpsychology is unquestionably made richer by the appearance of this important book.

JAMES GILLIGANClinical Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine,Adjunct Professor, School of Law,Collegiate Professor, School of Arts and Science,New York University,New York, USA.

The Trial on Trial: Volume Three: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial A. Duff, L.Farmer, S. Marshall and V. Tadros (Eds.). Oxford: Hart (2007) 306pp. d40.00hb ISBN978-1-84113-698-1

Fair Trials: The European Criminal Procedural Tradition and the European Court of HumanRights S.J. Summers. Oxford: Hart (2007) 184pp. d40.00hb ISBN 1-84113-730-8

I am a practical lawyer, not primarily a theorist, but I reviewed the first two volumes inThe Trial on Trial with enthusiasm: see Howard Journal (2007, vol. 46, p.209). Thecriminal trial is certainly under attack (see vol. 3, p.1) and needs outspoken defenders.A normative theory of the trial developed over several years by a team of legalphilosophers: how exciting. In brief, the theory is that the criminal trial is a processthrough which defendants are called to answer a charge of criminal wrongdoing and,if they are proved to have committed the offence, to answer for their conduct. The trialis a communicative forum which involves mutual relations of responsibility betweenthe participants. This communicative theory, they argue, best serves the importantends of protection and participation in a liberal democratic society.

How does this theory work? To my mind, the most interesting part is the theory’simplications for the roles of the different participants in the trial. The trial mustaddress the defendant as a responsible citizen (p.129): we are responsible to our fellowcitizens for our public wrongs (which are defined simply as wrongs for which we mustanswer to our fellow citizens). Does this mean, for example, that the authors think thedefendant should be forced to speak? Far from it: ‘it would require radical alteration inthe style of trials for proper direct participation by the defendant to be realistic andlegitimate’ (p.152). That is an extraordinary statement, not only because the authors

92r 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 49 No 1. February 2010ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 87–95