Let us discuss the fainting of V. Permyakov from the psychological aspect. Several hypotheses may arise, some of which are more plausible, and some not, and only one might correspond to the reality most. Let us present some of these.
So, if we reject the fact that fainting was a result of conscious activity, we can pass to the other hypotheses. The fainting in this case may be considered a result of enacting individual defense mechanisms.
It is known that defense mechanisms are respective tricks of a “Me”, so that the person shakes off his anxiety and tension.
In this case the fainting may be considered as a result of one of the defense mechanisms, in particular the activity of denial.
Denial, as a defense mechanism, functions in the case when the person grows anxiety, tension, mental feeling of anxiety. At that time the sub-consciousness of the person tries to “comfort” the person`s psychology denying the cause of the mental anxiety.
For example, person can be anxious with X problem and may find the solution in denying the problem. Thus, in case of denial the person just denies the impulse causing anxiety. This defense mechanism is expressed also with fainting.
So, in the discussed aspect the hypothesis may be put forward that denial arose in Permyakov as a defense mechanism against the impulse causing emotional disturbance.
Thus he denied the impulse through fainting.
Here we can face a problem to find out what that impulse was. Impulses can be various. Let us present some.
1. memory of the place of incident. By the way the accused could remember here both his personal actions and the contrary. We can deal with eidetism as a special expression of memory. In this case the eidetic images differ from the real ones as the person seems to continue to perceive the image of the memory even when it is absent.
The memory as a cognitive process, may be expressed through various processes – recalling, maintenance, reproduction, etc. It is not mandatory for Permyakov to be at the venue of the incident, as every one of us has a memory with the place of that tragic incident.
The impulse may be also reminiscence as the most interesting result from memory in case of which person recalls something accidentally, not intentionally. And that “something”, which is not known what it could be, may become an impulse for denial.
The impulse could also be emotional memory which is based on emotions.
Emotions can be various. The ability to sympathize can also be connected to the emotional memory, so in this case the accused may not have anything to do with what happened.
2.next impulse as a potential cause for denial might be the self-accusation. In this case the accused can accuse himself subconsiously or consciously, so that it causes high level of emotional tension. The latter can enact the denial as a defense of the “Me”.
Denial impulses can be also the exact cause of the fainting.
While discussing the psychological causes of the fainting we can also talk about another cause which is covered with mysterious halo. Particularly, it is about the coding (programming) of a person, when a a person accidentally wants to express impermissible things, and the respectively inserted program shuts off the person`s consciousness through fainting, so that it does not happen.
Let us also not forget that the fainting has several physiological causes – starting from sleeplessness, over-exhaustion, up to several illnesses. But should these causes be expressed exactly at the place of the incident? Was it a coincidence or not? It is hard to say.
As it is common to say, the less the information, the more the hypotheses.