And I can think of no end of the ways in which such technology could be abused. I've even seen laws against the use of hypnosis in court proceedings, as well as laws stating that exposure of its use against a witness being grounds for denying their credibility, due to the supposed ease by which a hypnotist can deliberately or even inadvertently confuse a person's memories or even conjure false ones.

As for the question of whether this technology was in fact used to commit the crime we're investigating, I find that hard to believe... and yet, we have a suspect who claims to have thoughtlessly used a poison they were neither aware of the nature of nor that they possessed. Out of context, it seems too absurd even for a lie, and yet he clearly has neither a direct nor an indirect motive, as well as no access to the poison.