Download Subtitles for Jeffrey Dahmer Documentary - Dr. Judith Becker PT4

[Music] here here here C Court Branch 33 and for Milwaukee County's now on sessionable law C Graham J presiding silence is commanded you may be seated just have a seat please dror you understand that you continue on I do cross examination thank you judge good morning Dr Becka good morning Miss wife um as we ended yesterday uh we were talking about a couple of things and I think I'd like to start by narrowing the issues that we're dealing with in the case Okay one of the last things was um an exhibit presented by Mr Bole of the temple that Jeffrey dmer Drew correct now I think you indicated that that was of interest to you because it was psychotic like correct um that's correct however ultimately after your examination you could not find any evidence or you could not find sufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of psychosis on the part of Jeffrey dmer correct that's correct right um another thing that could be an issue in the case is whe whether or not Jeffrey dmer had the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct correct that's correct and I believe you indicated on Direct that you made a finding to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that at all relevant times Jeffrey dmer could understand the wrongfulness of his conduct correct correct and what did you base that on um I based that on both question that I asked him several times in meeting with him and that is did he know that it was wrong to take a person's life and he indicated when I asked him that that he knew that it was wrong to do that okay so essentially the issues that were left with to your understanding are whether or not Jeffrey dmer suffered from a mental disease that's cor and whether or not that mental disease substantially impaired his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law correct those two issues were what we were left with okay let's first talk briefly about mental disease the mental disease that you diagnosed was paraphilia uh it was necrofilia which is a form of paraphilia all right now ask the doctor you pull the mic up a little higher I think that's great that's fine thank you all right now I think and I may have misheard you that at the end of the testimony yesterday you indicated that not all necrophilic have a mental disease is that correct um uh that is what I said and would you like me to explain that okay all right um in order to make the diagnosis of necrofilia a person has to have either acted that is they have intense sexual fantasies or urges number one that they have acted on or number two that they are distressed by um hypothetically there can be people out there who on occasion have thoughts or are attracted to thoughts about being sexual with corpses but they might not have ever acted on those urges and they might not be distressed by them and in that case I would not call that a mental disease all right so the fantasy or the urge becomes a mental disease because of the distress and or the act itself that's correct I just want to refer to one other thing this is concerning why don't you ID it's the diagnostic and statistical manual um uh it's the third version and it's been revised and um this is what is used to make diagnosis in the field of mental health and indeed the committee concerning paril is the committee on what you serve that's correct is there there's also a cautionary statement concerning the categories in this animal is that correct that's correct and does this cautionary statement did you start with it to the word disability does that appear it says it is to be understood that inclusion here for clinical and research purposes of a diagnostic category such as pathological gambling or pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other non-medical criteria for what constitutes mental disease mental disorder or mental disability all right now it would still be fair to substitute the word necrophilia for pedophilia in that cautionary statement would it not well it was not substituted in there so I would not feel comfortable saying it would be fair to do that all right so in other words of the paraphilia only pedophilia that cautionary statement applies to again or is that just I'm sorry or is that just an example um I did not write the cautionary um statement and so it's difficult for me to know if that is just one example that they meant um they didn't list the other forms of uh of par raelia all right could you read that statement once again sure it is to be understood that inclusion here for clinical and research purposes of a diagnostic category such as pathological gambling or pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other non-medical criteria of what constitutes mental disease mental disorder or mental disability all right now having reread that the word words such as a diagnostic category does that not indicate to you that they're listing examples that could be interpreted that way fine [Music] um do you agree that psychiatrists and psychologists differ on whether or not a paraphilia is a mental disease for legal purposes I do but let's talk about the specific paraphilia here necrophilia which you in your report indicated you considered in Jeffrey D's case of mental disease okay first in talking about paraphilia in shorthand is the major difference between paraphilia and normal sexual desires the object of that sexual desire um it indeed okay so in other words if someone is intensely sexually attracted a man's intensely sexually attracted to a red-headed woman that's not a paraphilia um as long as it's an adult male an adult female and she consents to be uh just the attraction in itself would not be considered a paraphilia okay however if an adult male is intensely sexually attracted to and I'm not trying to be factious instead of red hair red shoes uhhuh that's a paraphilia well it would be diagnosed as a paraphilia um if he um uh had a fe we would call that a fetish perhaps Okay so uh if he held on to the red shoes if he used it to masturbate if he acted on that attraction or if he was markedly distressed by his interest in red shoes Okay however going back um you said markedly distressed if the distress or the action is what makes it a mental disease but a man could have without being mentally mentally diseased thoughts or fantasies concerning these shoes correct a person could have thoughts or fantasies about um shoes and if uh it didn't bother them or if they didn't do something with the shoes we wouldn't diagnose them as having a fetish which is a paraphilia okay but again the major point is it's the difference in the nature of the object that's the it's the difference in the nature of what is the object of the intense sexual desire correct correct okay now when you were talking specifically about Mr dmer yesterday you indeed indicated I believe at one point that you were almost uncomfortable with the word necrophilia as a complete diagnosis because you didn't have a term for his sexual attraction to the unconscious sleeping breathing man with a heartbeat correct um that's correct in searching the literature I could not find a filia listed to Define attraction to someone who is placed in a comos state and is uh in a coma when you're doing something sexual to them right but you indicated that essentially other than the fact that the the man in the K State was breathing and had a heartbeat and the deceased was a corpse that for the purposes of the definition it essentially made no difference correct well the fact is the person was was out they could not interact um with Jeffrey right so for the purposes of the definition you came up with that did not make a big difference correct well in terms of I made um the diagnosis of necrofilia on two things one his behaviors that is that he did engage in sexual activity with a number of corpses two he reported to me that his that 25% of his erotic uh interest pattern was to being sexual with a corpse so it was on both those factors that's true but he also reported that 75% was to the Kos person correct that's what he self reported now while for the purposes of your ultimate definition or diagnosis of mental disease that did not make a difference the difference between the person who was breathing and with a heartbeat and the corpse was a homicide occurring correct that's correct and Mr D's responsibility in taking a person from stage one to stage two is the entire issue in this case correct that's correct so there the distinction is legally very important that's correct okay now let's go to page 19 of your notes you have them actually it starts right on the bottom of page 18 and we're talking about Mr D's eth victim Ernest Miller and starting with the last word there is this how it reads he Pro he propositioned him and then went with him to his apartment he had only a few pills available while he this would be Ernest Miller was asleep he thought how should I keep him he did not want to put this person through any pain and consequently he stabbed him in the jugular he reported that the victim died quickly Mr dhama reported that he had to consume alcoholic beverages before he was able to stab the person is that correct that's correct all right now visualizing that moment in time am I correct that what we have here is a live sleeping Kos man and Mr dmer according to what he reported to you says how shall I keep him because he doesn't have enough pills he's afraid he'll wake up if he strangles him and at that moment Mr dmer reaches outside himself to get alcohol to diminish his resistance to killing and then gets a knife after he's consumed alcohol and cuts the throat of Ernest Miller isn't that correct that's correct so Mr dmer who indicated to you that and I believe indicated throughout his interviews that the actual Act of Killing was distasteful to him and he'd seek the aid of alcohol in doing it used alcohol here to help impair his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law isn't that correct in in the case of um Ernest Miller um he reported to me that indeed he took alcohol because he wanted to keep this person and he didn't have the pills available to do it and so he needed to stab him and drinking helped him feel better about stabbing Ernest Miller it helped him feel better and helped him impair his ability yes to conform his conduct to the requirements of okay all right now let's refer to page page 16 in your notes early on in that page when we're there's the continuation of his description to you of what occurred with James docit who's referred to as victim number three but it's actually the first charg victim here Mr dmer reports to you that his compulsion was in full swing at this time correct M white could you just tell me where on page 16 I'm very sorry it's it's okay the top partial paragraph the next to the last line his compulsion was in full swing at this time okay according to Mr D right I correct okay that's what he says at the time that he has killed James docit the first charged victim that's what he reported to me that's correct however later on and we're now going to deal with the end of the second paragraph after he has killed Richard Guerrero yet another killing he reports the following he reports the incident with the juvenile SS in this case and that in that case he did not plan to kill him the juvenile the reason he did not plan to kill him was that he had to go to work that night and that helped helped him control his compulsion correct that's what he reported all right so although he reported that his compulsion was in full swing after he had killed James docit he killed yet another person and then later because he had to go work was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of Law and not kill a drugged victim correct M white that's why he that's what he reported was the reason why he didn't kill him I I can't say that that is the reason but that's what Jeffrey reported right the fact remains does it not that that man remained alive correct that's correct and therefore Jeffrey D's interaction with that man while in the full swing of his compulsion conformed to the requirements of law did it not in in that case he did not commit a homicide that's correct let's move on to an even more interesting incident perhaps it would be on page 18 and here we're dealing with the juvenile LP the man that Mr dmer it's the central paragraph there right the man that Mr dmer reported that he had it his apartment that he struck with a mallet and indeed tried to strangle first of all you read the um the statement of Mr dmer that was supplied to you correct his confession to the police yes okay and the version here differs somewhat from the statement as it was provided to you in that in that statement Mr reports that this person came back voluntarily with him to his apartment on one day he released him knowing that they'd meet the next day and that the incident described here with the Mallet and the attempted strangulation all occur on the second meeting yes all right now that first day when when there is contact between Mr dmer and LP and this I believe so we can put it in time is after he has killed his sixth victim this day Mr dmer conforms his conduct to the requirements of law the first day and releases the man to meet him the next day correct correct now on the second day we have the following incident according to his report Mr dmer did not have any pills available to him that weekend Mr dmer went to an army surplus store and bought a mallet he took pictures and had him that being LP lay on his stomach struck him in the back of the neck with the Mallet the guy got up first of all stopping there do you believe that was an attempt by Mr dmer to kill LP um I don't know if it was an attempt to kill him it was an attempt certainly to knock him out and render him unconscious okay the guy got up and attempted to leave the apartment and said he would call the police the guy left and then came back in and asked Mr dmer for money for a cab Mr dmer tried to strangle him at this point that is an attempt to kill him is it not but then calmed down and they both went into the bedroom all right let's go to the last portion of that we have a moment in time again when here Mr dmer has a juvenile LP who's indicated he's going to leave him Mr dmer has from his description his hands around his throat and is attempting to extinguish that man's life and at that moment he conforms his conduct to the requirements of law and stops correct correct he he did not strangle LP so would you say that in that case Mr dmer was responsible um I think Miss White what I be comfortable in saying is because of the struggle excuse me Jeffrey saw um that he was not going to be able to win this struggle and at that point stop struggling all right in other words if he can't win the fight he can control his conduct conform his conduct to the requirements of law um not I'm not saying that in all cases I'm saying that in regard to to LP it didn't work out the way Jeffrey um envisioned it working out in terms of what his fantasies were and what he does with his victims and there was a struggle Dr Becker let's go through it this way then in the case of LP because he couldn't win the struggle he was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of Law and not kill correct he he did not kill LP he was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of law in not killing him correct that's correct okay in the case of ss because he had to get to work he was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of Law and not kill him correct um Miss White if I can say that he did not kill the person you just mention but I don't know that I believe that it was because he had to get to work right for but the fact is he that's what he said did not kill and he did not in his interaction where he had drugged SS as he had drugged his other victims in his interaction with the SS which you'll admit was sexual interaction he informed his conduct to the requirements of law his reported reason was he had to get to work but for some reason he didn't did not kill him and therefore was able to conform his conduct requirements of law let's go on to I believe this is Page 20 right after Mr dmer has reported killing his ninth Vic victim David Thomas and here he says he went to Chicago for a vacation and met a man at a bath Club the man was black they went back to his apartment and Mr dmer drugged him Mr dmer stated that for some reason he did not do anything else he just masturbated and kissed the guy and the guy left he did not kill this man and he felt that it might be that he was not was not as I think that should read it says as not was not as attracted to him as he thought he would be correct that's correct so in this case after having killed his ninth victim while involved in sexual interaction at a man that with a man that he met at a bath Club having that man back at his apartment where he has killed several victims already having him drugged he conforms his conduct to the requirements of Law and does not kill correct that's correct P 20 20 it's page the First full paragraph actually yes that's right first full paragraph now there was one incident here I believe that um may not be reflected in your notes but are you aware of the incident in west Dallas at his grandmother's house where that involved a person whose name I can use since he's an adult Ronald flowers I'm I'm aware of that um I did not obtain that information from Jeffrey but from the police reports okay that incident from the police reports which were Mr D's statement included the description of him having the person at his grandmother's house having the person drugged having the person in his planning he crushed the pills before he left just as he did we'll take Anthony Sears in his case whose incident he did report he he'd crushed the pills ahead of time just as he had with Anthony seus correct correct and from your reading of the confession and his report to you concerning Anthony Sears in each case he had the two of them driven to the vicinity of his grandmother's house but dropped off some distance from it so he couldn't be traced to his grandmother's house correct that's that's my understanding and in each case the person was drugged and helpless inside the grandmother's house is that correct that's correct because the grandmother saw Ronald flowers according to Mr D's report to the police he did not kill him but he did Kill Anthony Sears correct correct so when he interacted with Ronald flowers he was able in regard to the homicide to conform his conduct to the requirements of law correct Miss White if I can just say that um again that I did not discuss Mr flowers with Jeffrey but based on what I read in the police reports in that case he conformed his conduct okay and what you read in the police reports were Mr D's report of what had occurred correct now you've indicated that at the time of each of the charged homicides that it's your opinion that Mr dmer was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of law correct that's correct I've discussed a number of incidents surrounding a number of the homicides where he did conform his conduct to the requirements of law correct yes you did yes so his responsibility or the way we know whether or not he's resp responsible is the fact that when someone dies he's not correct let me see if I if I um understand what you're saying am I saying that he is only not responsible for his behavior when a person dies what I'm saying is the way we know that he's not able to conform his conduct to the requirements of law is that when he's not we have a dead body someone dies correct that's correct so that's the one differing Factor correct I just want to make the distinction here that um I'm not saying that he doesn't have a paraphilia uh in those other cases but he violates the law when he takes someone's life okay that's we're not talking about the mental disease I was on the second front and I'm glad you brought that up um let's go back to the incident with LP Jeffrey dmer has his hands around LP's throat and is attempting to kill LP and he's attempting to kill LP to continue LP's presence with him because of his paraphilia correct um that's correct while in the act of strangling LP Mr dmer finds the ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of Law and does not kill him correct he doesn't kill him I don't know that I would be comfortable saying that um he finds the strength to conform his conduct I think he lost the struggle with LP I think he saw he was not going to be able to kill him and then have the body and do what he wanted with the body so he doesn't kill him and his conduct conforms to the requirements of law correct he doesn't kill him right okay he had he won the struggle at that time at that same moment in time and LP were another victim would it be your conclusion that he lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law yes therefore the result the death itself is what ultimately tells you that he was unable to conform his conduct correct correct have a few more things I have than back on the lp incident um were you aware either from Mr dhama or any other source that at one point he had LP bound with a cord um I I recall reading that and I think it was in the police report so a person who was bound wound up living um at that particular point from Mr D's report either to you or to the police correct I'm sorry your stat was person wound up living right a person who was bound either from Mr D's report to the police or report to you wound up living in that particular case correct that's correct okay now you're aware are you not that when asked Mr dmer indicated that the reason for these homicides was his own warped selfish desire for self-gratification that's the way he phrased it correct that's correct and by reason there we're talking about his motive in doing what he did correct um when he makes that statement is he telling us why he did what he did yes yes and indeed in your report of his statements we have I'm sorry your reports of his statement we have on page 12 for example um on the bottom that he reported he started using the sleeping pills during this period period because some guys wanted to perform anal sex and he did not want to this was a way of keeping them specifically Mr dmer did not want to be the recipient of anal sex and consequently if he were to drug the person they would then fall asleep and he would not have to participate in anal sex where he was the receptive partner correct that's what he said okay that's choice that the sexual activity will be his way without taking into consideration the needs or desires of the other person could be defined as a selfish Choice could it not yes it could I refer you to page 24 this would be toward the end of the third complete paragraph I asked Mr dmer again why he killed his victims he reported he did not just drug them and have sex with them and let them leave because he wanted to keep them he wanted to them to stay with him in other words Mr dmer reported that while he drew sexual pleasure from these people while they were alive in Kos his ultimate choice to do the Act of Killing was to extend his period of sexual pleasure with them correct that's correct and he did indicate to you that the Act of Killing itself was not what gave him gratification correct that's correct and that indeed he drank in order to make himself more able to do that actual Act of homicide correct that's what he reported now Mr dmer in doing this in extending in taking a person's life so that he would have a longer period of sexual pleasure with that person was doing a selfish Act was he not yes he was if Mr dmer reported to you that I drugged the person and had sex with them and then I killed them but I'm not a necil I have whatever filia it would have been that he's only aroused to Kos bodies but I killed them because this would be a living witness I killed the witness would you hold him responsible for that homicidal act okay he dragged a person he had sex with them while they were got that paraphilia the comos paraphilia the Kos one okay and then while the person is drugged he kills that person uhhuh and he says and the reason I kill that person it's no sex afterwards the reason I kill that person now is because I've already done a criminal act and if that person is alive they're going to report me to the police so now I'm getting rid of the witness okay would you hold him responsible for that act of homicide side um yes I would ma'am isn't the only difference between that and this the fact that he had a sexual motivation as well as getting rid of the evidence that led him to extend his period of time with the person the nature of his excuse me I think that was a yeser could you repeat excuse me judge that's just not fair witness in response to this question about give an answer you should be allowed to give it and if it doesn't meet you can move that be stricken you can't stop it from starting the answer is not fair objections overruled I think itially the witness can answer yes or no Manner and then if the examiner wishes for an explanation The Examiner can ask for that explanation examiner does not ask for an explanation the attorney and uh presented the witness and redirect we ask for the explanation you repeat the question you think he's the one supposed to ask and I'm supposed to answer yes right now but no I haven't heard question I don't question so because I have let's go back to what we have before I might say this I think any witness has the right would uh ask to answer question yes or no to say simply I am unable to answer it that way and then and then the questioner will just have to go on I understand but I really do want to have that last question right back so I'm prepared to ask it and redirect read the question back M fine just a second do you want to rephrase it or do you I believe the the the question question I asked which preceded it was whether or not if Jeffrey dmer had sexual interaction with a Kos person that he drugged and then killed that Kos person deriving no pleasure from The Killing and indicated that the reason he had killed that person was to get rid of the witness would he be responsible for that act and your answer to that was yes he would be yes the difference between that scenario and Jeffrey dmer killing to keep them for some extent Ed pleasure is the motive for the killing correct correct just a need one more second excuse okay I only have two other very brief things um one yesterday at the close of the day you indicated uh that Mr dmer had reported some additional um necrophilic acts to you um in your most recent interview I just need to know when that interview took place um I arrived here I believed it was on Sunday and uh went to the prison and uh spent it was anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half um with Jeffrey um to ask some further questions and it was at that time all right and ma'am were you alone with him was Dr Berlin with was with me and also one of his attorneys okay um now I just need to ask one more thing that I noticed yesterday yesterday you spent you did spend some considerable time at Mr Bo's request reading the the 26 pages of the in-depth interview right you took with Mr D now Dr Becker um you have testified previously in court but I think we established that that was concerning evaluation and treatment very often of sexual offenders and their reintegration perhaps into the community correct that's correct and this is the first time you've testified on the responsibility issue in any case and particularly in a homicide case that's correct all right now you read your notes virtually verbatim yesterday correct that's correct in looking at your notes are you aware ma'am that the name Jeff or Jeffrey never appears it's always Mr that's correct are you aware that you continuous we changed the name to Jeff or Jeffrey um your pointing it out makes me aware that I did that okay so until now you have not been aware of that until I just pointed it out I mean when I when I was reading it yesterday I saw Mr dmer but I said Jeffrey okay okay ma'am you're psychologist do you think that shows a certain psychological closeness you've developed to the defendant no it does not I I mean it could be interpreted that way but I I don't think that's the case okay you looked at the words Mr dmer yes and the name Jeff or Jeffrey came out of your mouth but you don't believe that's because of any particular closeness you feel for him I do not I have nothing further but thank you very much well you weren't told to do that were you you weren't told to personalize the calling no I was not okay now we're talking about acts of homicide here and I just want to ask you a few questions in light of this White's cross-examination uh she asked you to assume that the reason in her assumption that this person killed after having sex with a Kos person was to get rid of a witness that could testify against him that's correct do you believe that is the reason that Mr dmer killed I do not so that that that uh assumption that was asked of you was that if a person was suffering from uh the mental disease that you have attributed to Mr dmer and that his object of his in fantasy was simply to have sex with a person who he rendered Kos and after having all of that sex he then killed the person as it related to that homicide he wouldn't be nonresponsible if if Mr Bo if I may say something because I had to answer that yes or no sure that was a hypothetical and the fact is that if an individual did that I mean that person would have to be thoroughly evaluated because the fact is you might have a psychotic individual who then might not be responsible for having done that um hypotheticals make me uncomfortable um but in the hypothetical that Miss White was asking she she in she put in a a pretty interesting fact that the only reason for the killing was to get rid of the witness now we don't have that here do we we do not so although in the abstract your your answers were directed to her question uh that assumption is not uh uh the question before you as it has been in your cross and direct examination as to Jeffrey D's mental responsibility as it relates to his act of homicide that's correct uh the witness has used the term hypothetical question and I think maybe it might be helpful to the jurors if I instruct them right now a little bit about what hypothetical question is because some witnesses are allowed to answer a question that we call a hypothetical question now a hypothetical question is where a Witnesses and ask to assume certain facts as being true and from those assumptions to draw uh as to what conclusions they would draw now a hypothetical question is only valid to the extent that the assumptions are valid and you the jurors are the ones based on the testimony in this case that have to decide the validity of those assumptions go ahead Mr Shar dror one of the things I neglected to ask you in direct was you and I have entered into a retainer agreement yes would you tell us for the record what the sum and substance of that is um yes that I am to receive $5,000 plus whatever my expenses are let's talk about Filas have you ever found a filia a necrofilia you told us you look to see if there was a filia of someone that was amongst other things wanting to render someone comos in order to have sex correct and what did you do to determine whether or not there was such a filia in existence by name I reviewed the literature in this area you find any of the fit no did you go back to um necrofilia what's necro mean um a corpse what's a is it is that a Greek word the derivative of Greek word is there a derivative of a Greek word for a person who is also besides being a necrophilia wants to have a Kos filia I'm not all that familiar um with a Greek and don't have a a Greek dictionary available to me so if we were to derive one it would be whatever the Greek word for coma is and filia at the end of it okay now in the in the literature and in the Bible of the DSM I keep I call the Bible with dsm3 r have you reviewed that to decide whether or not we know is in here yes now do you have have you searched there to see if there has been instances sufficiently reported that the people who put together the dsmr I look for a person who had a paraphilia and that paraphilia also included or was singularly for having sex by com making someone comos and having sex with that there what in there it it's not mentioned you keep on using the word Jeffrey reported Jeffrey reported as you have testified now when Mr dmer was telling you things you would mark down what he was saying and then in many of your responses he said he reported things to you that's correct now if Mr dmer assumed that Mr dmer was psychotic I mean suffering from severe schizophrenia and he was telling you that he was doing what he was doing because martians landed in his neighborhood and told him to do that and I asked you what he told you you would say he reported that Martian landed in his neighborhood and told him to do it that's correct you'd say it that way I would but you wouldn't believe that I would not believe that martians landed no now when Mr dmer reported to you that he was doing the things he was doing because he wanted to achieve ab and C did you accept that as an absolute fact I I do not accept that as an absolute fact what is it that Mr dmer reported to you perhaps when he said um I used alcohol to carry out the killing of Mr Mr Miller because I was I had run out of sleeping pills and I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to kill him so alcohol I used alcohol in order to commit the ACT he reported that to you he did does that in any way change your opinion that at that moment in time because that's what we're talking about the time of the commission the offense he was suffering from the mental disease that you told us lack substantial capacity to conform his conduct to requirements of law no he he wanted to engage in sexual acts with that corpse and that was the way that is what he had to do to obtain the corpse so the alcohol reporting was a matter of reporting did it alter your opinion that if he had not had alcohol available to him he would not have killed Mr Miller it's quite possible that he would have killed him was he at that time whether he killed him or not suffering from a m disease yes he was now conforming or not conforming to the requirements of law doesn't mean respect for the law does it no well I mean um most people conform their behavior because in part they've got a respect for the law of course so if if a person says I'm not going to do that because that's against the law that person is conforming to the requirement law if a person say says I don't care what the law says I'm going to do what I want to do he's not conforming to the law correct correct now if a person has a mental disease and says I'm not going to conform to the law that doesn't mean he's not responsible unless his capacity to conform to the law is impaired isn't that true that's correct and in these instances it's your testimony that each and every time of the homicides he had a mental disease yes and the result of that mental disease that it affected his capacity to conform his conductor requirements of law yes substantially yes and that was made to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty um I'm not a psychiatrist so I'd have psychological that's correct okay now let's assume hypothetically that Mr Smith is suffering from necrofilia that Mr Smith wants to kill Mr Jones to have sex with Mr Jones after death make that assumption that he calls Mr Jones on the phone and invites him over to watch videos his object is to get Mr Jones in his apartment on the Assumption I'm giving you in order to render him dead so he can have sex okay Mr Jones doesn't come is Mr Smith still suffering from a mental disease yes is his capacity to conform his conduct of requirements of law sufficiently impaired in the abstract before Mr Jones comes to his apartment if his plan is to kill that man yes the fact that Mr Jones doesn't show up doesn't mean that that the person I'm talking about who wants to do the killing is suddenly conforming his conduct to the requirements of law does it no now Mr Jones comes Mr Jones is someone who he saw he never saw or he thought he saw but it's a different Mr Jones and that Mr Jones that comes in is built like me heavy set older and he says have a drink and go about your business I don't want you does that mean that Mr I forget who I've got is the bad guy but does that mean that that fella at that time was able to conform his conduct to requirements of law the person did not meet his specifications in terms of the type of body that he was attracted to well he conformed to the requirements of law he didn't kill him that's right okay because he didn't want him he didn't want him but if he wanted them and kill them in the hypothetical I just asked you would he have been suffering from a mental disease to the point where he lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to requirements of law because the object of his mental disease was there and he was driven to carry it out yes what if the same example the man walks in and he has the body that he wants and they start to talk and they make an agreement between themselves that he says I'm going to go now but I'm going to be back in an hour all right so he lets him go he comes back an hour and then he kills him what has been the relative difference between the defendant responsibility in those two instances one giving him an hour's leeway and then then when he comes back killing him she's still impaired yes same degree of impairment yes he didn't carry out the homicide therefore he conformed his conduct to requirements a law let me make sure I have this right Mr BR the person came back and he ultimately rendered him comos killed him and had sex with him yes the disorder is still there sure but how about him giving him an hour Furlow what happens to to the Conformity when he's given him an hours Furlow it has no meaning does it no of course do you believe that Jeffrey dmer killed based upon all the reports he gave to you to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty do you believe that Jeffrey dmer was killing because he wanted the people to stay with him I believe that Jeffrey dmer killed his victims because he is interested in engaging in sexual acts with um either a total corpse or body parts of someone who's not living dror we're here in a homicide case 15 of them Jeffrey dmer had a necrofilia which in your opinion was a mental disease yes it is against the law is it not to give someone pills against their will yes it is it is against the law to rape and to take sexually assault a human being under any occasion correct yes when Jeffrey dmer let's ask let me ask you this hypothetical let's assume that Jeffrey dammer suffering from this mental disease to the same degree that you've told us had rendered somebody comos had sex with with them and the moment after he had sex with them the moment after before he was able to kill that person the moment after Jeffrey dmer died of a heart attack would he in rendering that person comos for the purposes of sexually assaulting them changed his mental disease and all he still it had mental disease that's correct the object of his paraphilia would have been as you have expressed it to have sex when they're comos and sex when they're dead let's take away the dead he wasn't able to complete the death hack because he died would he have been responsible for the sex act that he did or would that have been the product of his mental disease it would have been the product of his mental disease so he would have been substantially impaired not to be able to conform to the conduct of requirements of the law when he decided that in the course of his objects he was going to do a number of things one render him comos have sex with them and then kill him and have sex with them correct so if he wasn't able to complete the killing because he died he still would have been impaired substantially in the giving of them the pills and in the sexual assault that's correct and that's to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty it is at any time with all the experience you've had in talking to paraphilias people would severe paraphilic disorders diseased or not diseased a lot of people I assume have told you fanciful stories they malingered they've made up things yeah did you ever find Jeffrey dmer inventing a psychosis to convince you that he was psychotic I did not did he ever falsify symptoms in your professional opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological surgy it's my opinion that he did not falsify symptoms you are not suggesting doctor that every single person that he ever came in contact with who he thought of as an object of his desires was going to be dead if he got to get with that person no it's when he got together with the person that he desired and committed the homicide it's your testimony that at that time of that act he met the standard um Mr War what I'm saying is that um he had a certain mindset about the type of people that he was attracted to and their bodies that he was attracted to and so if he came into contact with a person to whom he was was attracted and wanted their body or body parts um because of the nature of the disease that he had he could not conform his conduct there was a question asked of you relative to a a gentleman a black gentleman that he met in Chicago when he was on a vacation it was the one that was read to you page 20 you don't have to go into the uh they went back to M to his apartment and Mr dmer drugged him he stated that for some reason he did not do anything else he just masturbated and kissed the guy and a guy left remember that one yes I do he did not kill this man and he told you why he did not kill this man and the words that you read yesterday and I believe Miss Smith the Miss Smith read today was he felt Miss White Miss White I'm so sorry how did I do do that I apologize examples I think he did not kill this man and he felt that it might be that he was not as attracted to him as he thought he would be that's correct now that's certainly puts that man in a completely different category than anyone else that we're talking about who ended up as homicides correct I believe that it does did he ever tell you that I killed the guy after having sex with him but I didn't find him attractive so uh I killed him anyway he never told you no he did not let me just check with sh um you asked a question about flowers Mr flowers who escaped this potentially unfortunate incident to happen to others right yes there was grandmother sees him flowers lips correct correct conact synthos is seen by the police and citizens but he dies yes you explain the difference um I I did not ask um Jeffrey dmer what the difference was between the two so um okay I I'm I I have a note here and I'm almost I want to ask you about the VF book this part about the cautionary part of correct isn't that cautionary part to make sure that people just don't say that everything in that book uh is automatically integrated into the law I I think that's the fair statement to make well assume that a person has this necrofilia and decides that what I'm going to do is to get a job at the county morg and they work at the County Morgan I really want to make it absolutely clear I'm not suggesting this happens at all I have no idea but I have to use an example where a person would come in contact with dead bus and they work at that Mar and they act out some of their fantasies that doesn't mean they have a mental disease does it well if a person has sex with a dead body I didn't say they had sex they just work oh I'm sorry they just work there no they want to they want to they got fantasies about it but they never do anything about it and they're not distressed by these fantasies yeah they they you know they it it's like a person who maybe is is pulled to look at at uh Centerfolds and magazines but but they really want to do that but it's something they just do that they still go about their business of working and everything let's make the Assumption of the person who wants to work in a place where they can see corpses and they just see them they don't do anything to them okay that's still a necrophiliac it's a necrophiliac if the person acts on the urges or is distressed by them but if it doesn't bother them and they don't touch the bodies there then that would not meet criteria for diagnosis what about the person who continues to have sex continues to do things with the dead body more and more different things more and more frequent things they initially start this is an assumption they start touching a body once one month and then the next month they're doing it three times a month and the following month they're now they're starting to try and have relations and now they're starting to take body parts and now they're doing more and more what about about the progression of that person within the confines of of the paraphilic of his necrophilia if you act on the Urge as okay then you meet criteria for diagnosis when it becomes more often and more often and more often what is a clinical psychologist to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty are you starting to conclude about that person that the person uh that first of all they're they're not able people should not be having Stacks or touching dead B for sexual purposes and what I would conclude is that they've lost control over time the fantasies have intensified and they're not able to control their behavior relative to the corpse that person may very well have a mental disease yes it's very Dr Becker um Mr Bole gave you one hypothetical about Jeffrey dmer not having or using alcohol um during any one of these killings there's no evidence in any of his reports that alcohol was not involved in any one of those killings is there um I I think it's fair to say that's correct um my understanding is that when weekends came that he would consume up to 24 cans of beer all right so and these homicides occurred on weekends correct correct [Music] um you also or Mr Bole also indicated that um with the last black male that the explanation for that person not dying although Jeffrey dmer first says I um didn't kill him he may not have been attractive enough that that's a an acceptable explanation for his dying correct I would say that's acceptable I don't know if that's the actual reason but that would be one interpretation well doctor if that man fits his body type and it's not that he's unattractive enough and Jeffrey dmer has no other reason then indeed we have the perfect situation and he conforms his conduct and doesn't kill correct well know we're talking about we're we're talking about a hypothetical where there is a person uh who he's attracted to and brings him to his home and then does not kill this person right okay he's not violated the law in doing this he's conformed his conduct long drug them or anything else okay he's conformed his no he has drugged him he said he drugged his man because we're dealing are we not with responsibility for the Act of Killing here correct correct not motivation for killing correct you understand there is a distinction between those two correct between uh why decided to kill and the active killing why he decided to kill and whether or not he's responsible for the Act of Killing there are two different things correct correct and going back to my hypothetical if he decided to kill because he didn't want a witness then he's responsible correct well again I have to say I don't like hypotheticals because there's a lot of other things that have to be taken into consideration and I'm much more comfortable Miss White just with dealing you know with what he did let me go back to the question I asked and I believe you answered because Mr Bo asked hypotheticals and I didn't like it when he asked me either I know guess that that's one of the things that that happens but let me go back and I believe I'm repeating your answer if his motivation for extinguishing a human life was to get rid of the witness to the fact that he drugged them and and use them sexually that act he is responsible for correct given that the person was not psychotic right and Jeffrey dmer we're assuming non psychosis just as in the case of Jeffrey do he killed somebody just so that that person would not be able to tell that he had drugged them and had sex with them and he was not interested in doing things sexually with the body after the Act Right correct so he's he is responsible and that person also we assume understands the difference between right and wrong in the Act of Killing you want me to assume that that person understood and that person's responsible yes Jeffrey dmer however you are saying is not responsible for that Act of Killing although he knows the difference between right and wrong he does not derive pleasure from The Act of Killing but [Music] because there is something sexual he wishes to do with the dead body afterwards that makes him nonresponsible correct can I I can answer that yes or no um but I'd like to be able to explain it start with the yes or no okay the answer is that makes him not responsible okay may I explain it or go ahead okay the the in my opinion the nature of the disease that he has is such that the killing has to occur so that he is driven to have sex with a dead corpse or by body parts and to get to that point the person has to be dead Okay a dead corpse or body parts as long as they are attractive very specific very specific attractive male and young male young don't have cars because okay male young don't have cards on a weekend when he's got time after consuming alcohol I I think you have to answer aloud oh I'm sorry sorry yes so far to everything Miss White has said very very specific in other words we know he's not responsible for these 15 deaths because these 15 people died correct um do I have to say yes or no to that I'd like you to part of why he is not responsible is because these 15 people died and indeed he indicated early on in some of his reports that at least one of them David Thomas he killed because he was afraid he'd wake up and be pissed off he wasn't particularly attracted to him that was early it's confession correct correct and you don't believe that do you I do not believe all of what Jeffrey dmer told me related to why he did what he did just one other thing um going back to the um the paraphilic actions that you describ described late yesterday that you developed in your last interview with Jeffrey dmer in that regard Dr Berlin was right there with you during the conversation he was he was in the room with me okay and as far as you know participating in the conversation and hearing it did he hear what I had to say what you had to say and What Jeffrey dmer had to say yes okay I think that's all thank you again two question doctor it was clear that when I asked you about this drinking episode it's because it came up in the case of Mr Miller I wasn't in any way trying to imply that drinking was just limited to that it's because you were asked questions about the Miller incident and the stabbing that I raised that question objection she can't comment on his motivation well I want to ask I that was just a foundation to this question I think it was a short speech well it was wasn't real long speech it was short speech I agree we have a stipulation it was a short okay Dr the drinking that we're talking about in reference to Mr Miller did the fact that Jeffrey dmer told you that he had a drink in order to use the knife to cut the juggler vein of Mr Miller did that in any way alter your opinion that he was not respons I for that no the fact of the absence or the presence of drinking in any of the other homicides is that a major factor in your decision that he was not mentally responsive no even if Mr dmer did not drink he still would have necrofilia Dr Mr dmer you were asked a question by Miss White about the homicide if the homicide did not take place uh would he have not been responsible and your answer was in part you're you made there was another part what was the other part you wanted to express it's my opinion which I've stated a number of times is that he has a mental disease and that is what drives his behavior Dr Mr dmer reported to you time and time again that he placed these people in a K State correct that while in the K State he had sex with them yes your honor I'm going to object I believe we're beyond the the uh bounds of re redirect at this point I think that by my next question will show the reason I had lay that Foundation just let me make clear that uh the scope is limited at this point to the scope of the uh cross-examination and I absolutely understand that I think the next question first two were foundations to the question that came up in recross why before the act of murder homicide did Mr dmer report to you that he put these people in a K State objection irrelevant to cross she opened up the door in her redirect her recross just a minute I haven't asked for any argument that's right I'll allow the question objections over why did he tell me that he would put people into a com State um for a couple cple of reasons one because it was much more arousing to him to be sexual with a person who was Kos and that he had control over the person and uh also that he didn't I mean if you want me to go on there are a number of things he said and and they are in my notes um that he didn't have to entertain the person that he didn't have to have very much in the way of interaction with the person and did he in any way indicate to him to you about is not wanting them to be conscious when he killed them he's told me that he didn't want um and this sounds unusual but that he didn't want his victims to be in pain and each and every one of his the persons were unconscious at the time of death as far as you know from what he reported in in relation to the 15 cases ma'am here um that's my recollection is no you're honor thank you thank you you that down we're going to need more than about 20 minutes if I can my next witness is about 10 minutes AG okay recess