Download Jeffrey Dahmer Subtitles - Dr. Park Dietz Audio Remastered

[Music] Dr I think you had been talking about the the temple matter and would I could I ask you if that at that point if you had as you discussed that if you had any considerations uh considering whether or not the defendant was psychotic well I gave consideration to that not only with respect to the temple but with respect to all of the evidence and I found no evidence that Mr dmer has ever had any psychotic symptom um there are three kinds of psychotic symptoms that do occur from time to time in individuals if they have a psychotic illness one is hallucinations which is the experience of perceiving something present which is not present nor is this merely a mistake most often hearing a voice speaking to someone or seeing a vision that is not there The Voice is not there but it it's perceived as being there or the vision is not there but it's perceived as being there Mr dmer has never told anyone that he's ever had a hallucination at any time a second kind of psychotic symptom is known as a delusion and a delusion is a false belief that is firmly held the product of a mental illness and can't be challenged with any kind of evidence a patient who actually has a delusion has a firmly held belief and no matter what evidence is brought before them it will not change their view of what happened now there are other stubborn people who have a wrong opinion that they can't be talked out of but it's only a delusion if it's a belief that arises from a mental illness and Mr dmer in my opinion has never had any delusional belief at any time in his life the Third Kind of psychotic symptom is that of markedly disordered thinking and this refers to a derangement in the way in which the mind works such that the patient is unable to think logically and usually that is obvious to those around the patient because they can't communicate logically or coherently if they do any writing it doesn't make sense and anyone who tries to follow their logic can see that there's something wrong with the thinking of the individual that there various ways in which that may manifest itself it's not difficult to see and there's no indication that Mr dmer has ever had markedly illogical thinking with the form of his thoughts being strange what has been strange is the content of his thoughts because his sexual interests are indeed abnormal or at least some of them are and that's different from having the form of one's thinking be impaired he's able to reason logically he's able to communicate at without difficulty and there's no impairment as far as I've been able to tell at any time in Mr D's capacity for logical thinking part of my examination was what's called a mental status examination in which I asked him a series of questions to see how his mind was working at that time and I also took a history of what symptoms he may or may not have experienced in the past and in the course of uh that mental status examination and all of the other evidence I reviewed I found no evidence that Mr dmer ever had any psychotic symptom the one uh feature of his behavior that I needed to explore most carefully however was that related to his ideas concerning the temple and I concluded after analyzing all the evidence available that what those ideas about the temple ought best to be considered excuse me assuming that that they're true they ought to be considered to be an example of superstitious beliefs and superstitious beliefs can occur both among those who do not have any of the psychiatrically recognized mental disorders and can also occur among people who do there is one particular personality disorder in which superstitious beliefs are a common feature and I would think in Mr D's case that the best way to describe those superstitious beliefs in relation to the temple or the the horror films he was watching would be to see them as um the kind of superstitious beliefs one sees in that personality disorder known as schizotypal personality disorder I don't think he has that disorder because he doesn't have enough of the features of it but uh he has that particular trait and he also has the trait of not having friends during his adult life which occurs in that same uh cluster of features and so that kind of superstitious belief is very much like people who uh dabble with the occult in other ways and believe in Clairvoyance or who are interested in Reading New Age books or think that crystals might contain some information or go to palmists and um just because one has beliefs of that sort doesn't mean that once has any more serious problem and doctor as part of the information I forwarded to you I forwarded the copies of the Wisconsin jury instructions on the issue of mental responsibility is that correct yes you did and that those materials contain a definition of the words mental disease is that correct yes and in considering the the various paraphilias and determining whether in your opinion they were a mental disease did you consider the Wisconsin jur instruction yes I did would you explain to the jury what your perceptions are on that issue well first of all mental disease is not a current medical or psychiatric term and so U what I addressed and believed it was my task to do was what Wisconsin law means by mental disease and there's a specific definition in the jury instructions you sent me According to which uh mental disease is an abnorm an abnormal condition of the mind that substantially affects mental or emotional processes and so I considered whether the paraphilic disorders of Mr dmer are an abnormal condition of the mind that substantially affects mental or emotional processes and in my opinion the paraphilic conditions of Mr dmer or for that matter of anyone with a paraphilia do not substantially affect mental or emotional processes what the paraphilia do affect are sexual interests but mental processes such as the capacity to reason the ability to use logic the ability to think clearly and communicate those mental processes and indeed all mental processes are Untouched by the paraphilias individuals can have any of the paraphilias including the most bizarre of them and yet be thoroughly intelligent logical rational high functioning people and indeed Mr dmer uh is of above average intelligence and has intact all of the mental processes as to whether the paraphilic conditions affect his emotional processes here again I think the answer is no the paraphilias affect his sexual interests they affect what will give him an erection but they have no impact on his emotional regulation that is his emotional processes individuals with paraphilia do not necessarily have any other problems and in particular there is no relationship between having a paraphilia and having problems with one emot one's emotional processes such as depression or anxiety or uh Euphoria we recognize in Psychiatry various kinds of OT processes that can be impaired in patients but the paraphilia don't cause those impairments such as disorders of mood or of anxiety so I don't believe that Mr D's paraphilic conditions substantially affect his mental or emotional processes and therefore would not be a mental disease under the Wisconsin law in your opinion of course that's it's a jury question but uh if that's what a mental disease is then I don't believe that a paraphilia is such a condition in your diagnosis of Mr darmer you identified certain personality traits that are found commonly in the antisocial personality would you comment on that to the jury well I found some traits for several different of the kinds of Personality patterns including antisocial and the the particular traits that occur in antisocial personalities that occur in Mr darmer are uh first a uh failure to conform to social norms in other words he breaks the law and he's done so both in the charged killings and in some other matters that have come to the attention of the authorities in the past secondly that he has never sustained a monogamous relationship for more than a year he has had periods of celibacy and he's had periods of of uh of promiscuity and he's had periods with multiple partners but he's never had a monogamous relationship for a year thirdly Mr dmer has had an excessive number of absences from work uh both at the plasma center and also at the Chocolate Factory in fact that's what led to his losing each of those jobs and excessive absenteeism from work that's unexplained by illness and oneself or one's family is one of the features that occurs among antisocial personalities and fourthly Mr dmer has a history of disregarding the truth by lying to other people and conning others for his personal pleasure principally with respect to the U crimes with which he's charged where it was necessary to uh con people into returning to the apartment under various pretexts and where he found himself telling a number of lies to cover his tracks in the course of these crimes so those four features are uh sufficient to fulfill the adulthood criteria in antisocial personality disorder diagnosis but Mr dmer does not so far as I can tell have the childhood features of that disorder and so um I do not believe a diagnosis of such a disorder is correct but merely am pointing out that he has some of the adult features and it's true to say is it not that within the field of Psychiatry for the most part there's a substantial agreement that the antisocial antisocial personality disorder is not a mental disease would that be accurate well Psychiatry doesn't use the concept of mental disease but I don't think anyone in Psychiatry thinks it's a mental illness in terms of the discussion we had yesterday about the control of fantasies and how they're created I'm not sure that was entirely clear to me perhaps uh would you discuss that uh the issue of control and Fantasies well Mr dmer had I believe the onset of his paraphilia is well still an adolescent and uh what I uh hope I conveyed yesterday is that I don't think that any adolescent is in control of what paraphilias he acquires or at least not intentionally um in control of that uh paraphilia are acquired by a combination of circumstances in life I think and that uh it is a matter of what he learns to find sexy and as he goes through life he discovers what it is that is sexy to him that is what I mean by the acquisition of a paraphilia it is learning to find certain things in life sexy and uh he didn't choose which things he would find sexy what someone with a paraphilia does choose and control however is what then happens based on what he find sexy like anyone else when his uh desire for sex surfaces he will be inclined to think about or seek out those kinds of things that are to him sexy now as to what he thinks about thoughts can enter an individual's mind Uninvited he can voluntarily invoke fantasies of his favorite paraphilic images he can voluntarily invoke fantasies of attractive young males with the desired physique without any of the paraphilic fantasies becoming part of it and he's done both those things he can also attempt to suppress those or any other sexual fantasies and there have been times when he has voluntarily suppressed his sexual fantasies but it's also true that thoughts can creep into one's mind without being invited they can come in in a dream they can um they can enter one's mind while one's trying to think about something else and that happens to everyone from time to time that thoughts come into their mind that they weren't inviting in and so some of what thoughts cross his mind is not under voluntary control though he can supress it think about something else in the same way that anyone else can try to push thoughts out of their mind or invite them in and as to actions the paraphilia have no effect on one's capacity to choose whether to act or not and so his capacity to decide whether to commit a crime to fulfill his sexual desire as opposed to masturbating while thinking about such a crime is as much a matter of his choice as it is for any individual who makes a decision whether to satisfy sexual urges in some lawful way including masturbation or in some illegal way so what I meant to be conveying is that he didn't control what paraphilia he got and what he found sexy he has as anyone does a great deal of control over what fantasies he allows in his mind or invites in uh and he has uh just as much control as as any normal person as to whether he acts to gratify himself sexually and what acts those will be thank you very much doctor in connection with the deaths of Oliver Lacy and Joseph bra you talked about an altering role of alcohol and just so that the issue was clear I'd like to put this question to you with respect to both deaths uh did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether the defendant's paraphilic involvement alone rendered him without substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct I did and that's with respect to both defendants and what was your opinion as the question is put in that fashion um my opinion is that the paraphilic involvement and interests of Mr dmer did not substantially impair his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the times of those or any of the other homicides and is that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty yes it is can you tell the jury why Mr dmer had these parts of human beings around at the house at the time of the arrest well at the time of the arrest there were three reasons for the particular parts that he had there one reason was that some of the U remains of Mr Turner were frozen to the bottom of the freezer and it was a practical problem to thaw the freezer and discard them a second reason for having some of the remains was that he hadn't yet gotten round to discarding things that he had planted to discard he had uh put some things in the freezer and some in the refrigerator that he meant to uh further process and to discard um but a third reason is that there were materials that he intended to keep and would have liked to have kept and it's that um third point that accounts for the skulls that he had already uh processed by boiling and removing soft tissues and in some instances applying lacquer and this Granite looking paint and it also accounts for the complete skeleton of Ernest Miller that he had already um preserved and he intended he told me to keep also the uh complete skeleton of one of the other victims in order to be able to um at some point reconstruct it these in the I'm sorry namely Mr Lacy [Music] um what Mr dmer has repeatedly said was that he wanted to keep skulls and at least uh some of those parts because they reminded him of the victims he felt that their lives and deaths had not been such a complete waste if he could retain parts of them they served as remembrances and keepsakes for him he would occasionally use some of those at least the ones associated with the men he found more more attractive as a stimulus to masturbation fantasies in which he'd think about the man and the things he'd done with the man and so he kept them both as momentos and as a stimulus for masturbation so that he can could continue to enjoy them sexually How could a person spend the hours that he did cutting up bodies well Mr dmer indicated he found that activity repulsive originally and that with time and with repetition eventually it became a less onerous task though the odor continued to bother him and it would always seemed like a great deal of work to him um he said that he would use alcohol to decrease the repulsiveness of that and he described other techniques he used to make it less unappealing but he described a process that we would refer to as desensitization in which with repeated exposure to this it became less and less Troublesome to do it and of course that's a process through which um many people go in the course of doing work that brings them in contact with such unspeakable things things people who work around ambulance services or emergency rooms operating rooms mortuaries morgs battlefields identifying victims in forensic Labs all of those kinds of activities cause the professionals who do those things to have to develop a thicker skin and to get less upset about it and they use various coping mechanisms to achieve that so that they're not so upset and they have to learn not to relate emotionally every one of these victims they deal with or it's overwhelming and just as professionals become desensitized to doing autopsies and handling human remains U Mr dmer substantially desensitized himself to much of that and I'd like to keep in you to keep in mind and responding to this question to keep in mind your personal experiences in serial slayings I'd like you to keep in mind the the cases that you've reviewed worked on with respect to the Behavioral Science unit counseling you've had with the FBI and to keep in mind the serial type cases that you've researched in preparing and writing articles about serial killers keeping all that in mind you have a comment as to whether or not this case is particularly unique this dmer case well of course every case is unique because every individual is unique and has personal motivations and personal histories that make them a human but the more bizarre elements in Mr D's case are all things that have occurred before and uh none are really inventions of his for committing crimes in these ways or doing these things there's a long historical precedent for many of the behaviors he engaged in one of the earliest of the um uh described serial killers was a man in um what was then Transylvania who in fact would keep the bodies of his male victims and have their heads mounted uh for a beauty contest from time to time he would have his servants because he was a wealthy man arranged the heads excuse me can we get a year on this when was this what year um I'm afraid I can't recall the year but I believe it was in the 16th century I'm not sure of that I'm going to object to it unless there's some Foundation doctor had something some knowledge other than reading books about it that so therefore I think it's immaterial relevant ask you to update I appreciate your historical the depth of what you studied this subject that you have the historical perception but would you bring it update it in terms of of uh what you've seen in the years you've worked with the FBI you're reading in recent years and your own involvement in serial killers jumping ahead several centuries then we could come to the uh case of Harvey glatman who like Mr dmer uh used the pretext of wanting to take bondage photographs in order to get victims in a helpless position and who after taking their photographs would then strangle them judge with all due respect to the good doctor I'm going to object this unless there's a foundation that we're going to be comparing serial killing what one person did with another and whether the psychosis or not to it it's beyond the the scope of the proper inor before this jury if it please the court Mr Bo has attempted to induce from several witnesses successfully to an extent at least within their knowledge this case seemed quite unique this is not an issue otherwise I would be raising it was an issue moved by Mr Bole dwelt on by Mr Bole but the court has a broad discretion to place some limits as to what's going to be helpful to the jury uh how long are we going to take on this historical field three minutes doctor can we make it three or four minutes any deadline you like okay fine is overruled you may proceed uh dismemberment as a um form of ridding oneself of remains is also um something that occurs in number of cases uh not just among serial killers but among ordinary uh rather single victim Killers as well a case that I consulted on last year involved a man who had um killed his own mentally ill daughter perhaps in self-defense after years of abuse by her and who having done so uh wished to avoid being found with the body because he thought the police would not believe self-defense story and he dismembered his his own daughter in the bathtub eventually was persuaded by his sister to call the police and when the police arrived uh they found the daughter's head in the refrigerator her heart in the refrigerator parts of her body boiling in pots on the stove her arm sticking out of the sink drain and blood throughout the bathtub all of which for him a man with no history of mental illness and who was doing very well at work and in fact even went to work for the day in the midst of this was a means of trying to remove the evidence of the killing a second uh uh dismemberment case that I consulted on was one who dismembered the body simply to be able to fit it into a trunk so that it could be more readily concealed and uh dismemberments used for a variety of means in variety of ways in order to dispose of evidence among offenders who have even killed just one the desire to have sex slaves such as the zombies that Mr dmer describes wanting to create is quite common among serial killers and is uh one of the more uh prominent features of some of them who go to Great Lengths to do it including constructing special cells or uh captivity rooms in their dwellings or special bunkers in which to keep the victims so that they can keep a victim alive and available to them sexually for as long as possible and a number have in fact confined victims for long periods uh of time even as long as years and necrophilia is also uh not a unique feature of this case um the uh the last serial killer trial that I testified in involved a man who in fact uh was motivated by necrofilia to kill his various victims he was convicted of killing uh 10 or 11 prostitutes and had uh left one go free who gave the account that he had difficulty becoming a wct until he directed her to pretend she was dead close her eyes and lie still whereupon he was able to perform sexually and he was so gratified by her willingness to do that that he let her live and this man reported returning to the scene of some of the crimes to lie next to the bodies and to just uh lay down beside them and and go to sleep with them and on one occasion went to sleep with a corpse in his car with him so each element of the case that would seem to be bizarre is one that's occurred in in other homicides uh and that is in fact not unique were those individuals found sayane I'm going to object to the former question it's inappropriate irrelevant just be nothing further Dr thank you I'd like to start D have you ever test have you ever testified in a case responsibility where the primary dysfunctioning of the defendant was paraphilia without more where you will find that the paraphilia in that human being was a mental disease I can't imagine doing that no is it safe to say that you would always hold fast to the premise that a person who suffers from a PA of ailia without more in the way of of psychiatric disturbance would never rise to the level where you could opine a mental disease well that would depend on what definition of mental disease okay one had to operate with take mental disease in the instruction is further delineated by a statement that it is a mental it's an impairment of the Mind whether enduring or transitory that affects the mental or emotional processes of the accused okay would you ever find a paraphilia in any human being to be such that it would be considered an impairment of the Mind whether enduring or transitory that would affect the emotional or mental processes of the suspect uh I don't think that I would ever find that a paraphilia alone impaired mental or emotional processes Dr Deets for the purposes of this discussion I have the highest respect for you and I do not any way mean to demean your professionalism okay I have seen you testify in California versus BR brri and I know of some of the other cases you've been involved in but I have to ask you a number of questions if I were a defense lawyer as I am and I concluded that I had a client that was suffering from a paraphilia you would not be the fell I'd want to call to come in with an eye towards Finding Me Al disease if I was convinced that the only thing that I in my lay person's opinion could find was a paraphilia correct given the U mental disease definition that we're talking about that's right sure as a matter of fact as early as 1985 in the annuals of the American Association of psychiatric the annuals of the American Academy of psychiatric experts uh in an article in January of 1985 you wrote why experts disagree variations and psychiatric evaluations of criminal Insanity you remember that um that's an article in the annals of the American Academy of political and social science okay and you wrote that I wrote an article on that and do you recall saying in opinion you were discussing opinion formation of the forensic psych psychiatrist you say certain mental disorders such as mental retardation schizophrenia or dementia can have such severe effect on functioning While others such as sexual deviation anxiety disorders and most personality disorders cannot remember making that statement yes that's right you hold true to that today yes I do okay and in a footnote you said in the footnote to that par you said it is possible to concoct in probable factual situations in which these latter disorders which would include sexual deviations latter disorders would form the basis of a legitimate Insanity defense colon I have never seen such a case and am unconvinced by the cases my psychiatric colleagues offer as examples that's what you said and is and in fact I was thinking of Dr Berlin as the one who offers examples yeah that's that's right but you just you hold true to that today yes you have never seen a paraphilic case standing alone with that as the primary diagnosis or the diagnosis where the conduct of that paraphilic could ever be such that he his conduct his problem would be considered an impairment of the Mind transitory or enduring that could in any way affect his emotional or mental processes so that he would be found not responsible for the conduct that he engaged it true well there's a lot in that question um I don't believe that that's what the law says that it could in any way affect his mental or emotional processes I think it asks for more but it is true that I've never seen a case in which an individual who suffered from only a paraphilia and no other disorders could qualify for an insanity defense under any of the current tests of insanity although I have seen people who had a paraphilia and also a mental illness who were insane because of their mental illness what would mental illness what kind schizophrenia the U medically what I recognize is the mental illnesses are schizophrenia sure dementia sure delirium delusional disorder which used to be called paranoia and uh at least some instances of medic depressive disorder the fact of the matter is all psychiatrists similarly situated with who are considered to be good psychiatrists would agree with that definition of metalis right people who are saying schizophrenia isn't a mental illness either right I think everyone would agree those are all mental illnesses all right so so what we have then is we have a person like yourself that says that if you're paraphilic or you've got personality disorders or you've got post trumatic syndrome but you also have schizophrenia delusional thinking paranoia dementia then you may you may be mentally ill and when you do something you may have an insanity defense no if you have a mental ill you are mentally ill there's no May about it if you're schizophrenic you're mentally ill but the other part is true that if someone has a mental illness as well as a paraphilia or personality disorder Etc then they may be insane for crimes now let's let's talk about the schizophrenic not everything the schizophrenic does in the course of his daily life is a product of his mental illness is it that's right so that schizophrenics can take a gun and shoot someone and still be held accountable for the shooting unless you can connect the act with their schizophrenia correct well unless you can connect their schizophrenia with the functions the law requires for finding of insanity if a not all schizophrenics who murder are insane at the time of the commission of the offense correct correct not all schizophrenics who act are unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct correct correct not all schizophrenics who act are unable or lack substantial capacity to conform their conduct to requirements of law correct yes not all par all all paraphilic all paraphilic are able to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct true unless there's something that would cause them not to appreciate the wrongfulness I understand that let's leave out all other mental illnesses person suffering from paralytic disorders alone are always able to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct I believe you meant paraphilic disorder paraphilic I'm sorry uh if an individual only has a paraphilia and no other impairment of the mind then they would appreciate the wrongfulness of any wrongful acts they commit no paraphilic unless he has an attending mental disorders such as the ones you listed schizophrenia dementia delusional thinking no paraphilic could because of his paraphilia lack substantial capacity to conform his conduct to requirements of law true I believe that's true okay so what you told us then in the in very very well incidentally very impressive but you've told us yesterday and in today was because all I found was paraphilia I conclude absolutely absolutely that this man was at all times able to conform is conduct to requirements of law not exactly um paraphilia wasn't all I found well the only I'm sorry go ahead and it is a relevant inquiry for the jury and for me as to whether the other problems of Mr dmer could relieve him of responsibility and as I testified I think that there is a possibility that alcohol intoxication that was other than purposely to lower his inhibitions played a substantial part in the last two killings with which he's charged here then but let's take the the the first 13 just the 13 you were present at a panel discussion with Dr Rosman Dr Resnik I remember the other gentleman you remember other one was no I don't where the subject matter I think the third one was Dr hucker remember that one that was a panel discussion that took place sometime in December of 87 reported in the AAPL newsletter what's AAPL stand for that's the American Academy of Psychiatry and the law and this was an annual meeting summary about what went on during this panel discussion you were one of the panelists of the three and the chair was Dr Philip Resnik do you remember being there I remember being there I don't remember whether I was a panelist or what what was the date of it uh well let me show you what I have and then you maybe can help me thank you I think you're on the second page There's a summary of a whole bunch of different things going on at the same time I think you're up the top right hand corner I think I see remember that I remember being there and being panelist actually that some the matter that you may I have that I I'll give it right back to you if you need a copy I'll get it you remember that you discussed necrophilia and you discussed the definition and the classification of necrofilia and you said that true necrophilia or at least it's reported according to the DSM 3r would would be be present in two forms egod distonic fantasy and necrophilic offenders you remember saying that uh no but I recall what what I've always said on that on that subject that someone might have recorded that way before we go on any further do you like or dislike the DSM 3r do you use it I use it all the time and there's a great deal of it I like uh and there are things I think are quite wrong about it as a matter of fact you were on the two of the panel uh or two of the Committees one on teril paraphilias and then you also were on impulse control disorders not otherwise classified yes okay now I'm gonna be asking about that so I'll put up so get close I want to ask you however about your feelings on necrophilia that you talked about at the at that annual meeting and at least the presentor of this saying what you all were saying said that you said that necrofilia would be in two forms ego distonic fantasy and necrophilic offenders what is os's desonic fantasy well this isn't a phrase that I would have endorsed um but I know what that refers to okay would you tell us sure the um what what I would have been addressing was that the dsm3 uh committee got into a disagreement in fact it's one I already mentioned to the jury in which um everyone else on the committee including Dr bin and Dr Becker um voted that we shouldn't call an individual paraphilic if it doesn't bother them to have these unusual desires and I thought we should call them paraphilic even if they're happy to want to do these things okay and so I was saying that the way the committee was going I don't know if the book was out at the time yet or not but um that that what had happened was that the rest of the committee had said there are two ways to earn the diagnosis you can either be a criminal and act on necrofilia or you can be a non-criminal sure who wants to do things with Corpses and doesn't like the wish and doesn't do it which would be someone who has ego distonic paraphilic fantasies that is doesn't like having these fantasies your your view was also that the concept of necrofilia include all those who have necrophilic F fantasies that's basically what you wanted I want I would I would like to use the term for anyone who has the persistent desire to do this whether it bothers them or not okay then you said the classifications however of necro files would then be made according to the degree that the fantasies are carried over into action that would be how you would separate the one type of necropile from another type of necropile that's what you were proposing I don't recall though I've always thought it um made sense to look at what adaptations the paraphile would use you you it is reported that you what you were saying on the panel was that the acts occur over a spectrum ranging from role playing with sexual partners pure violation of a corpse through crimes of accept accessing corpses and homicide you remember making that statement I don't remember the one after role playing I'm sorry after role playing uh with sexual partners pure violation of a corpse through crimes of accessing corpses and homicide I don't know what pure violation of a corpse is but the rest of that I remember okay well and so see I'm only going on a basis of what I'm reading that they said you said so if you want to just read that maybe we can hustle this along a little bit yes I understand what that's about I think if I may interpret your words what you're saying is that anybody anybody who thinks about necrophilic Behavior whether you're bothered by it or not the mere fact that you got it all those people should be put into the necropile category and then what we'll do from there is will find out just how distressed they are from it and start classifying them depending upon what they do with it the person who just has the thoughts or to the person who uses his spouse in a role playing or the person who actually goes and gets a corpse or to the person who kills to get that fantasy done isn't that what you were saying no that's not at all um first first of all I don't think everybody who just thinks about it should have this label and uh to have the label one has to have sexual urges toward sex with a corpse persisting for at least 6 months that's not just thinking about it that's wanting to do it okay but I did maintain that everybody who wants to do it persistently for 6 months has this abnormality we call necrophilia and then I suggested that one can look at those who don't act on it at all those who will molest a corpse those who will dig up a grave or Rob a mortuary to get a corpse and those who will even kill to have a fresh corpse but I don't see that as a spectrum of how distressed they are I see it as a spectrum of how bad they are how willing they are to commit crimes T so you recognize at that time when you were talking about necrophiles that there were necrophiles whose fantasies were so strong that they'd go out and kill to fulfill those fantasies I didn't think it then and I don't think it now I don't think anyone kills because their fantasies are strong I think they kill because their inhibitions against killing are lowered and they indulge themselves um you then talk about pseudo necrophilia what is your position and what is the word pseudo necrofilo mean to you I was responding to a classification that Dr Resnik developed and I um I no longer recall what the classification was wasn't that a classification of a person who involves himself in necrophilia as an afterthought in other words they kill and then after they kill they say I want to try and have sex with isn't that pseudo necrofilia I don't recall what was meant by it at the time of that meeting but I think that would be something one could reasonably call pseudo necrofilia at that same conference at which you were present as a panelist and I assume that you stayed for the panel discussion and while other panelists made their thoughts Dr U Resnik I trust in your presence and if not tell me said with regard to social policy psychiatrists are always perceived as excusing sin and considering paraphilia as a basis for insanity and considering paraphilia as a basis for Insanity would undermine their remaining credibility paraphilia could be considered in a sentencing phase of a trial rather than the guilt innocence phase do you recall that being made in your presence um not specifically but it I accept that it was okay you know Dr Resnik to have been a uh expert in the field of necrofilia do you know yes he's done a lot of studies on I don't know about a lot but he has studied the subject very carefully have you ever read the study that he and the other gentleman who was on that panel um Dr Rossman Dr Rossman did I believe that I have okay I want to show it to you if I may see if uh not that not I just asked you if you're an agreement did you ever read this I'm not marked yet just this uh I read that um I I read some version of this I don't recall if it was a draft or that whether I reviewed it for the journal for them to decide whether to publish it but at some stage I've read good may I have it back I want to ask you some questions because there's some discussions about alcohol used by netork files in here I want to ask you if you agree or disagree with at least what is stated here and that is the use of alcohol or drugs may have been an important factor in helping some of the perpetrators overcome their inhibitions and actually perform their necrophilic acts Grill whoever he is is quoted saying quote the destruction of the dams of Shame disgust and morality which take place in the cre in the erection of necrofilia requires more psychic labor than in the construction of any other perversions do you agree with that that might be so I don't know I mean this is this is um alcohol may have been used in some cases to overcome inhibitions about killing rather than about the necrophilic AXS do you agree with that I do agree with that yes you agree with this although the most common motive of necrofilia was the possession of an unresisting and unrec partner the necrophiles frequently Express more than one motive for their Acts our data confirms Smith and Brown's observations that quote necrophilia may appear as the culmination of a pattern of multiple and increasingly perverse practices rather than an isolated abrupt abrupt deviation qu quote do you agree with that well no if it's I understand where the author of that went wrong necrophilic Behavior may occur on an occasional basis that way just as erotic cannibalism may occur that way um but it doesn't make it necrofilia if it's just something a person does when they've run out of other Frontiers to cross after a variety of sex crimes then it's not necrofilia it's only necrofilia if it's an enduring desire okay but I just want to concentrate on this although the most common motive for necrofilia according to the co-authors was possession of an unresisting rejecting partner the necrophiles frequently Express more than one motive for their acts do you agree with that yes okay how many necrophiles homicidal necrophiles have you dealt with in the course of your career um directly in uh I'd say three or four cases indirectly in 20 or 30 and by way of reading about them and studying them and assembling the literature just about all that are known three or four necro philic you've had something to do with that is where you clinically have sat down and talked to them I think that's what you mean when you sit down with somebody who you're talking to that's clinical right right either that or where I've had occasion to really study every aspect of their life as I have with Mr dmer I understand but I'm talking about in terms of cases where you came into court and rendered an opinion on the fact that a necropile a necrophiliac homicidal killer uh was or was not U possessed of a mental disease how many cases you testify to him um I've only heard of one other case in my experience where anyone promoted an insanity defense for necrofilia usually no one would suggest it was Insanity well well well we have some doctors here that say it was so with all due respect I want to know did you testify in that case in any in that case you're talking about there's one case that I did yes and was that an insanity defense it was an insanity defense based on a claim of holes in his brain epilepsy post-traumatic stress disorder sexual torture in childhood and manic depressive illness nobody suggested the necrofilia made him insane he but my question is was necrofilia the only mental aberration claimed in that case where you testified as your opinion it was more than necrofilia um epilepsy you said was involved well it wasn't involved but the defense claimed it was okay let's talk about our our respective roles it is your function in a courtroom to express your opinion to assist a jury in making a decision as you so have aptly said it that it is going to be their decision whether or not there was mental disease correct that's right that's your role yes just as it was the role of Dr fosil Dr fredman Dr Berlin Dr Becker Dr walr and Dr Perl correct exactly it is not mine or the courts or or anyone other than the jury correct you are a noted internationally noted and renowned forensic psychiatrist who has come into this courtroom and on the basis of everything that you've learned and on all the basis of your clinical findings you have opined you have stated as your opinion as a forensic psychiatrist that Mr dmer when he committed these homicides 13 anyway was not suffering from a mental disease correct um according to Wisconsin law and the questions that you were asked you stated that he was not suffering from a mental disease at the time that he committed the homicides in question without endorsing the um the flattering aspects of the question about my reputation as to what I've testified about here sure uh I think that that is correct that uh that I've expressed the opinion that at the time of at least the 13 homicides the paraphilic aspects of Mr dmer do not fulfill in my opinion the Wisconsin criteria for a mental disease and even if they did that he nonetheless appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions and could conform his conduct to the requirements of the law regardless of whether one thinks that this is a mental disease let's stop right there up until now did you ever say that yesterday and up till this morning that even if he was suffering from a mental disease even if this is considered a mental disease he would have been able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and conform his conduct to requirements of law have you said that isue was not what he have theal capacity every time that question was put Rec is very clear M's issue was not in it he was expressing a direct opinion on the capacity to appreciate wrongfulness and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law the record is very clear as to that the record is clear that he was asked whether or not he was suffering from a mental disease under a Wisconsin instruction he he said the instruction yes said that this morning okay this one I want to know did all of his opinions were directly gentlemen gentlemen I haven't asked for argument I would like to perhaps hear the question red back so I fully understand the question let's stop right there up until now did you ever say that yesterday and up until this morning that even if he was suffering from mental disease even if this considered this is considered a mental disease would have been able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and conform his the requirements of law I think the doctor's able to answer that question objections overruled go ahead doctor I believe first of all that when I was asked all the specific questions about the responsibility prongs in connection with each of the killings there was no mention made of mental disease and I was expressing opinions about his appreciation of wrongfulness regardless of whether there was a mental disease and likewise for his Conformity of conduct okay let me I'm sorry the only time in that process where I injected to the surprise of Mr mccan some commentary about mental disease was on the last two charged killings okay let me ask you this question doctor if he didn't have a mental disease then he would always be able we're talking about we're here from an insanity case if he didn't have a mental disease he would be able absolutely to conform his conduct to requirements of Law and to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct correct if he didn't have a mental disease of course would be able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and to conform his conduct to requirements of law true well I don't know there perhaps I I haven't thought about it that way there might be some kind of mental condition not recognized as a mental disease under Wisconsin law that medically could still impair him in those ways did you make such a finding I well I haven't thought about this hypothetical but I think that um that the general point is that of the mental diseases that anyone's considered in this case if uh if Mr dmer doesn't have any of the conditions that someone might think is a mental disease I'm sorry I need to start again um if the jury were to find that Mr D doesn't have a mental disease then they would not be able to find him insane they wouldn't be they wouldn't be able to say he couldn't conform correct that's the whole key you first got to find the mental disease correct the jury will have to do that yes all right but you were answering questions then about the fact over and over again that he was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of conduct and he was able to conform his conduct to requirements of law and the reason he was able to do that is because you found that he wasn't suffering from a mental condition the results of which was an impairment of his mind that was transitory or enduring that affected his mental or emotional processes correct not at all no the reasons for my saying that Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct are every one of those reasons that I gave for every one of the charged killings as evidence that showed that he knew that what he was doing was wrong and the reasons for my opinions that he could conform his conduct to the requirements of the law are every piece of evidence I cited indicating that at the time of the killings with which he's charged he could conform his conduct to the requirements of the law if my reason were a personal belief that he didn't have a mental disease there'd be no need to look at all that evidence but the jury like me have to make up their mind Minds based on the evidence about these crimes not on a theory of mental disease but you know Mr mccan show you the jury instruction did you read the Wisconsin jury instruction yes I did did you read what the jury by the court will be directed to do in their deliberations that they will first consider the question of mental disease I believe correct yes they must find a mental disease first correct that's my recollection is a person who is suffering from a sexual disorder called a paraphilia having recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies for a period of six months involving either non-human objects and that person has either acted on these urges or is marketly distressed by them do you agree that that is the definition of what a paraphilia is I agree that that's the dsm3 our description and I've explained what I don't like about it you agree with it I I think it's too narrow but I agree that anyone who meets those criteria does have necrophilia so paraphilia sorry thank you of all of the paraphilias which paraphilia has inherent in it homicide none except necrofilia if the person killed to get the corpse correct no sexual ssts are the ones who kill the most but inherent in the it's not inherent in any of I thought he finished I've been very kind if you if I'm cutting you off just let me know I don't mean to do that go ahead finish your question um homicide is not inherent in any paraphilia though there have been some who have questioned whether there may be a paraphilia of killing and have searched to find a case that might be an example of it it's not anything that's yet been described doesn't sexual sadism include the conscious torturing of another human being for one's own sexual purposes isn't that what it is yes person's got to be conscious the victim has to be yes and isn't it suggested that perhaps the sexual sadus will end up killing the person but it's not inherent in the concept of sexual sadism that the person ends up being deceased correct correct just as in necrophilia it's not inherent that the person starts out being alive next question sexual masochism is where a person can end up killing themselves because in the interest of what they're doing in their paraphilic disorder they may end up not pulling the Escape valve at the last moment correct yes right but in necrofilia if the necrophiliac can't get his corpse it very well may be that to to achieve his fantasy he may involve himself in homicide true unless he decides to masturbate unless he decides to look at a picture of a dead body unless he decides to get someone to pretend to be dead or pay them to do that um one of the things he may choose to do is to kill do you agree and if I cut you off just say you got more do you agree with the findings by Dr Rosman and Dr Resnik that the genuine necropile has a persistent sexual attraction to corpses the sexual attractions may be manifested in the necrophiles fantasies or in a series of necrophilic Acts most of this group fits the dsm3 diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specify and includes cases in which the corpse represents a fistic object we classify them as genuine necrophiles a necropile homicidal B regular necrofilia and see necrophilic fantasies and the fourth category is the pseudo necropile do you agree with that breakdown of necrophiles I don't want to look in more detail of at just what they're doing um it is a rare thing is it not in the history of mankind to find people who commit homicide to carry out their necrophilic Acts true it's rare as far as we know it used to be rare it's becoming more common if I were to tell you that Dr rosmus and resnik's study found as late as 1989 that there were only 14 in a study of uh a group representing 188 that is then knocked down to to uh 50 54 there would be a rarity there's only 54 genuine necrofilia cases that they found that they studied and 14 of those were homicidal necrophilic that would be a small proportion of people on the cosmos correct well that's only a small proportion has been written up in the journals what what they studied was cases other people had published but most cases don't get published I I still agree with the idea that it's it is not common sure and that um and of course Mo most necrophilic behavior and necrophilic crimes goes undetected the people are never caught for it because the victims can't speak let me um let me ask you this would Jeffrey dmer had continued his necrophilic homicides had he not been arrested or because of the Tracy Edwards thing as long as he had a place that he could privately take them alcohol to decrease his inhibitions and could uh spare the time to dispose of the remains I want to I want to ask you then about Mr D's uh conduct you have alluded to the fact that he had his own apartment as a thing that was something that you considered so he could secret people away correct yes you indicated that he never did this in public in other words he never killed anybody at the peep shows he never killed anybody on the streets if he had done that let's assume that he had done that killed somebody in a peep show and had a necrophilic act with one person in that Peep Show one time would your answers as to his mental condition without the psychosis that we have generated in our litany would your answers be any different as to his mental condition when he was killing all these other people obje almost untelligible question can you understand the question yes me answer it I apprciate um I'd want to explore the behavior at the time of that homicide just as I have for each of the others assuming that uh there were no other differences in his behavior but rather he was intoxicated when that happened assuming that he escaped and realized he had a close call leaving a corpse in there and people had seen him in the store and that he didn't do it again assuming he said about that that I realized I took too big a risk and so i' stopped doing it that way i' think I'd come to the same conclusions on the other handead if he um dragged the corpse out in the store and told the manager I think you better do something with this guy and walked away I'd have a different opinion because that would suggest that maybe he didn't know it was wrong well how about Conformity well if he had uh gone into a bookstore and spotted a male with an attractive physique and there in front of the surveillance camera and the guy at the desk who's reading his newspaper he strangles the man and gets down between the shelves of the store and has sex with the corpse on the floor while other patients are in and out I'd say that that implies that he's having difficulty conforming his conduct because of what mental condition well would only happen if he also had a mental disease which would not which would be something other than just pure par paraphilic Behavior correct someone whose only problem is a paraphilia would not do that particular thing before we break for tell me if you want to go on two things before we break for lunch first of all let's talk about serial killers the ones that you've studied is it safe to say that most serial killers who were not psychotic as we have now learned the Litany of what that means were antisocial most of them were was that the question I I forgot my question is it safe to say that the serial killers that you have studied who were not psychotic were antisocial well that's the most common personality disorder but narcissistic personality disorder and other kinds of personality traits also occur they aren't all antisocial we're all serial killers that you've studied regardless of what their personality traits were other than the psychotic ones found by you to be antisocial well by definition any serial killer who wasn't psychotic or mentally [ __ ] and none have been mentally [ __ ] would have at least the antisocial trait of failing to conform to the law there is in the dsm3 r what something called antisocial Behavior adult antisocial Behavior what's it call you know what I'm talking about there's a non-diagnosis a label called adult antisocial Behavior did all serial killers that you studied would you have a fixed that to them anti- adult antisocial Behavior Uh I would certainly say that every serial killer must either have antisocial personality disorder or some antisocial personality traits or to have engaged in some antisocial Behavior I think by definition I don't think there's ever been one who did it for pro-social purposes what did you state in your formal report so I don't take up time looking for it because I can find it over the noon hour what did you say relative to the finding of antisocial conduct on on Mr dmer if you recall in my report I stated that Mr dmer had certain uh personality traits I specifically mention antisocial as one of the kinds did you not State on page six thank you second par well first full paragraph Mr dmer about the fourth sentence does not meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder and in particular lacks features of a conduct disorder before age 15 is that read that right yes and that's is that true of of other serial killers also serial killers who were found to been the ones we're talking about the the big names the bundies the gayes the ones you've studied were these folks also not did they not meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder and in particular they lack features of a conduct disorder before age 15 that's been true for quite a few of them Bundy was principally a necropile who had adult antisocial Behavior but not much by way of the childhood stuff did you put in your report that he had adult antisocial beh Behavior I said he had antisocial traits okay but you didn't say adult I'm just trying to use phrases anti adult antisocial Behavior you didn't say that no that's a term to be used when there's nothing at all wrong with someone and you just want to describe why they came in before we break for lunch you indicated to me that if Jeffrey dmer had gone into the supermarket had committed a necrophilic act had killed somebody had had sex with them and had gone up to the manager and said you better do something about what happened back there you might reassess what you think about his mental condition because that would have really been an overwhelming thing to have found in Jeffrey dmer that would have caused you maybe to give your hypothesis a second look correct well I didn't say Supermarket but I'll accept that one too if he done it in the supermarket I'd feel the same way that if he if he behaved in that manner I would uh believe that there would have to be another mental disorder present and and frankly one of the things that you've told us and other doctors have told us is that this getting rid of the evidence knowing to bring people back uh doing it only on the weekends uh hiding escaping detection all of that showed a fell who is in control of his environment and therefore even though he didn't have a mental disease anyway he was conforming his conduct to requirements of law he was in control correct you've said that haven't you I haven't said that he didn't have a mental disease I have said that all of those behaviors you just alluded to indicate that Mr dmer wasn't um aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct appreciated that and that uh the behaviors that I described show that he could conform his behavior to their requirs of the law am I missing something here did Jeffrey dmer have a mental disease in your professional opinion at the time that he was carrying out these homicides other than the last two I think that that's a Yuri question perhaps I'm permitted to express an opinion on it well let me ask you it this way was he suffering from an impairment of the mind that was either enduring or transitory that affected his mental or emotional processes at the time he was committing these murders an impairment of the mind well I think that a paraphilia is an abnormal condition of the mind which is what I thought the law specified I think that alcohol dependence is an abnormal condition in the mind I don't think that personality disorder or personality traits necessarily meet that and of those categories which are the only ones I think apply to Mr dmer I don't think uh paraphilia or personality traits or disorders substantially affect mental or emotional processes for the reasons I gave I think that alcohol dependence May substantially affect emotional processes that would only been for the last two killings though well he's always been alcohol dependent at least since since age 17 but the question of um alcohol intoxication applies to the last two killings I am of the excuse me I'm of the opinion Dr de so Mr mccan read to you asked you if he sent you the jury instructions did you read uh the definition of mental disease and I believe he repeated it mental disease is an abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects the mental or emotional processes and I believe he asked you whether or not Jeffrey dmer qualified for that condition on each and every time of these homicides and I believe your answer was he did not have such an abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affected his mental or emotional processes I think you I think you'll find your Recollections incorrect he asked me if Jeffrey dmer paraphilias amounted to such a condition then I'm going to ask you did Jeffrey dmer at the time he was committing these murders have such an abnormal condition of his mind that his mental and emotional processes were substantially affected um and my answer to that is that I don't know partly because it really is a jury question in the end but my actual area of of uncertainty here is what the effects are of alcohol intoxication at the time of the last two killings what so what you're saying is you don't know but it wouldn't matter because all of his conduct was such that he could have conformed it to the requirements of law he didn't lack substantial capacity because of the things you enumerated correct I think that that's what the evidence shows right now I want to go back to the supermarket incident there was a time it wasn't a supermarket there was a time and the evidence shows and you have told us about it and if I'm wrong on any of my facts please tell me before you answer that I'm wrong on any of my facts and I'll try and correct them that Mr dmer had in his apartment con synthos own I apologize that I don't pronounce said well because poor young man is deceased he had Conor and that's all I'm going to call him from now on that he had drilled a hole in his head to try and make him into a zombie that he left to go get some beer that as he was returning he saw this youngster on the street naked that in spite of seeing him naked and in spite of seeing people around this leoan a Ian boy who it has been put into testimony was certainly in a minority of minorities was disoriented that Jeffrey dmer went up to him and put his arms around him that he claimed that it was his friend that people were viewing this and making noises and saying things observing this conduct that the police and the fire came onto the scene that Jeffrey dmer convinced the policeman that this was his boyfriend and all of that what that means that the police asked him for identification and he gave his name and the place where he worked he said this is his friend of two or three weeks duration the officers went back to his apartment he identified the youngster by the name of John hamong that there was a dead body on the bed in the Next Room that at no time did he try and stop the police from coming into that apartment that he said I will take care of that youngster and that when the police left at some time within a short period thereafter he attempted to continue making this youngster in a zombie State having failed to do that and accomplish that on prior occasions and ended up with a dead body that in fact that youngster died is that not a kin to telling the fella at the supermarket stand go on back because of body back there maybe you ought to do something about it I think you could say that Mr dmer has guts he went through those elaborate procedures to con the police into thinking that there was not a problem here and got them to leave it's in marked contrast to the hypothetical example of what became the supermarket where the point was that a crime was committed right in the presence of others here Mr darmer committed his crime behind closed doors before the presence of others and after the presence of others and during the presence of others told an effective set of lies to cover himself he didn't have very many logical options available to him here because by this time he had drilled a hole in the boy if he let if dmer had walked away at that point and let the police or the rescue people take him they would have taken him to a hospital or tried to identify him someone may have discovered that he was delirious because of acid in his brain they would have done some testing they might have discovered what happened or else he would have died and it would have been discovered then at an autopsy and it Mr dmer had no way to know whether before dying this young man might reveal his identity or or whether an investigation of the neighborhood where they picked him up might track back to him once he had him back in the apartment with the police gone experiencing relief that he'd gotten rid of the police now he really had to kill him though he may have liked to have preserved him as a zombie he didn't see another option he couldn't let him go and he knew that the only way to prevent being tied to the death was going to be to dispose of these remains so that they couldn't be discovered because the police could tie him to that particular young man doctor it's your belief that Jeffrey dmer thought those things that you've said or are you hypothecating well his behavior is completely consistent with that by which he did it let me ask you this you then are telling us that he knew he was going to have to kill him he was going to have to kill him well he was going to have to kill him and he would like to have been able to enjoy him some more he never saw the killing as gratifying uh but rather as a means to an end in each instance and what he would have found more gratifying was to keep conrack in a zombie like State as long as possible one more question before we break okay this is the last one doctor when that youngster doesn't come back to his home and the parents go looking for him would not Jeffrey dmer have known that three policemen saw that same youngster in his apartment and wouldn't Jeffrey dmer have made a better choice by leaving him live in spite of the holes in the head than in killing him when three policemen knew the last place that child was seen was in his apartment how about that choice morally of course it would have been a better choice to let him live as to evading detection if he'd Let Him Live he was going to have a problem that hole in the skull was not going to go away the acid in the brain was not going to go away someone was going to find that there was a problem with this young man unless Jeffrey dmer dismembered the corpse and destroyed all the evidence break for lunch I'd like to try to get going at 1:15 so courts in recess