Download Subtitles for Jeffrey Dahmer Dr. Park Dietz Audio

[Music] okay I think we had a question there that we didn't quite have a chance to answer before the siren went sure doctor the question was does a paraphilia attraction paraphilic attraction cause a compulsion no it doesn't and why not psychiatrically it compulsion is a behavior in which an individual feels he or she must engage in order to avoid something bad from happening often to prevent some disaster from occurring the individual recognizes that what he here she thinks must be done is senseless and most importantly the activity that the person feels compelled to engage in must have no real relationship to what it is they're trying to avoid so an example of a real compulsion would be an individual who while driving always feels it as necessary to drive around the block to make sure that they haven't run over a child now driving around the block doesn't prevent one realistically from running over children in fact theoretically the opposite could happen if you drive around the block long enough you may hit a child but a person with compulsion feels it's necessary to do that to avoid hitting a child or as another example someone with a handwashing compulsion may wash their hands 50 60 100 times a day and may do that to prevent their body disintegrating or having a heart attack or contamination of some kind now it's clear that there's no sensible connection between washing your hands and preventing a heart attack but even on the idea of preventing a contamination it's not sensible to wash one's hands that often because once the hands are as raw and wounded from washing excessively as happens with such patients they may be more likely to get an infection because they've messed up the protective covering of the skin but the central element is that in a compulsion the behavior the person feels they must do has to have no real relationship to whatever dreaded thing they are trying to prevent in the case of a paraphilia what the paraphilia means is that the individual would like to have particular kinds of sexual activity or to have a particular image in mind while engaging in sex the desire to have that image in mind or to engage in such sexual activity doesn't prevent any dreaded thing from happening except the conditioning the condition of wanting to have sex there's an immediate connection between having sex and gratifying a sexual desire so they are connected and a compulsion they're not connected what the person does doesn't prevent the harm and paraphilia masturbating to the fantasy or engaging in the ACT does relieve the sexual urge that the person feels at the time so also um to clarify this dsm3 makes it plain that paraphilia are not compulsions by definition so there's there's no question a paraphilia medically and psychiatrically is not a compulsion however the word compulsion is also used by people in another way in ordinary language outside medicine and Psychiatry we frequently use the word compulsion to mean something someone wants to do a lot U my son collects baseball cards and begs his mom and me constantly to take him to the baseball card store well some people might describe that as a compulsion though psychiatrically it's not it's simply something that he would like to do and that he thinks of often and he wishes to do or people with teenagers know that many of them are very interested in cars and can't wait to read a car magazine look at a new car see what the engine looks like and have a great interest in this well we might refer to that as a compulsive interest in cars but that's not medically a compulsion it's not a mental disorder in the sense that we use that term to mean something some someone likes a lot you could say that paraph have that kind of interest in whatever their sex object is but it isn't any different from normal sex objects and sex choices if we were to say that a paraphile has a compulsion to engage in such sexual activity we'd have to say that all humans who have any sex drive have a compulsion to engage in the sexual activities they like because it's exactly the same people do have sex Drive they do want to do it but they're also capable of refraining from those actions some choose not to and even as a person with normal sex drive towards a perhaps a female a man towards a female even as he would need to exercise restraint so a paraphile withdrawn to a dead body would need to exercise restraint selfcontrol that's right does the fact that the object of the paraphilic desire might be bizarre mean that therefore the paraphilic lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law no it doesn't and um many of the paraphilia would be considered Bizarre by most of us bizarre is not a particular term of Art in Psychiatry we use it the same way that uh that other people use the term except in there's one exception to that there it's a particular kind of symptom where we distinguish bizarre and not bizarre forms but that's not relevant here generally we just use the term bizarre in the ordinary way and uh many of the paraphilias have as their objects activities that are far into us and in that sense bizarre or repulsive to us and in that sense bizarre so I think most people would agree agree that it's bizarre to find it sexually attractive to consume that is to eat feces or urine or to have sex with corpses um but those are paraphilias that to the people who have them represent things that are sexy and the fact that we find it repulsive doesn't tell us anything about the individual's willpower or what they know about wrongfulness or any of the legally relevant issues before we turn to the individual homicides did you make any further observations with respect to Mr D's paraphilic interests or sexual interests yes um besides the particular paraphilias that I diagnosed and described before there are a number of activities that Mr dmer is engaged in that I considered as to whether they were paraphilic some of them are things that if he had an enduring interest in the activity would probably justify giving another diagnosis of another paraphilic label but because these are things that he only did on on a few occasions they do not rise to that level of persistence that's required before we diagnose a paraphilia and yet some of them do do be mentioning one is that excuse me Mr dmer on a number of occasions masturbated while looking at or um or looking at a photograph of one of his victims after death or a portion of his victims after death now where it's the intact body that's no different from the other Act activities of necrophilia but where it's a portion of the body such as occasions where he would masturbate while looking at a decapitated head or while looking at a skull those are of course very odd behaviors and require that one look at why does somebody do something that odd and so with Mr dmer I explored what he had in mind and why he engaged in those behaviors and established that he was engaging in such behaviors for sexual reasons partly to experiment and see if this would be erotic or sexy to him and in some instances he found that it wasn't but also partly because he found that some of that facilitated the fantasy of the entire person so for example in one instance in which he used a s head for that purpose what he focused his attention on explained was the face and the attractive features of the face to him while suppressing awareness of the fact that it was a severed head the fantasy was of the living person to whom the head belonged that requires a certain focus of concentration to be able to ignore the unattractive part of that while being stimulated by the attractive part but it's not particularly different from things that that normal people do when a sexual partner has some temporary incapacity that makes a part of their body unattractive and they have to sort of keep that out of mind during the sex act in other instances uh what Mr dmer would do is to use the occasion to fantasize about what he in fact had enjoyed sexually with that victim and that particularly occurred after he began experimenting with what it would be like to taste the Flesh of his victims and there were several instances in which he would cook a portion of muscle tissue removed from a victim and prepare himself a meal in which that was one of the dishes and initially he told me that was not an an erotic or sexual activity it was something he wanted to try he wanted to be bold and experiment with something he hadn't done before and he tried it out and then found that afterwards he could masturbate about that person picturing the whole person and after doing this he also found that it helped him fantasize that he was making that person whom he had by then killed in some way a part of him and that idea of incorporating another person and making him part of oneself is something that we see in other cases in which individuals have the fantasy that they'd like to make some other person more a part of them they want something of that person to belong to them and this is seen in in a wide range of human activities from collecting the autographs of famous people so that one can have a part of them or an autograph baseball to wanting to have one's picture taken with a celebrity all of these things are a kind of way of making someone else a part of oneself and of course in marriage that's something that healthy couples will uh sometimes think about that they join together as a couple and each feels more a part of the other of course they don't do it in this way but Mr dmer had the notion that this was something he would try out and having having done so found some sexual pleasure in the way in which he could facilitate fantasy through it but it wasn't sufficiently enduring that it becomes a paraphilia since he didn't enjoy at all that much and he didn't do it for long enough to earn the diagnosis there was one particular time in the during which I just was discussing such things with Mr dmer and he said several things I think clarify how he saw these particularly unusual activities one was when I was discussing with him the actual opening up of an individual's abdomen where the insides could be seen and I was I was asking him whether he imagined that the person was suffering while he did that and he said no he did not imagine their suffering uh and was never excited by that idea but rather he said quote I would thrill to seeing the insides I never thought of them being alive while it was being done so he got some thrill out of seeing what what was inside the person then when I asked him further why he didn't have his way with the victims and to um take advantage of all the opportunities that were available to to them or such things even while they were unconscious sorry I didn't phrase that too well I asked him why he didn't open up the abdomen and explore the viscera while the person was drugged since the way in which he was drugging them would have allowed him to do that while the person remained unconscious why not do it while they're still alive and he said that that was not what he wanted to do his words were quote I wanted to sexually enjoy them while they were whole and undamaged I then asked were they more appealing that way and he replied uh uh-huh in other words yes but after they were cut there was some thrill in seeing the insides as well but I never got any thrill in the actual Act of strangling end quote I said that was never an erotic act and he said never was no I said I began to ask it was and he said means to an end I asked and what end and he said quote to render them completely under my control so that I could take my time with any sexual acts that I desired and so it's on that basis and all of the other evidence that I say that the killing of the victims was never for Jeffrey dmer a paraphilic act he never had a paraphilia about killing people he found the killing itself unattractive and unappealing and he would have preferred to be able to have the living person as his sexual partner over having them dead The Killing as he described it was a means to an end rather than a paraphilic end in itself may we now turn to the individual homicides listed in the charging document the information did you evaluate Jeffrey D's mental state at the time of the James docor first-degree murder event that being in January of 1988 yes I did would you share with the jury your findings with respect to whether Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct when he killed James docor yes first I asked Mr dmer whether anyone had seen him go into the residence with Mr docor he said no one had and pointed out that it was late at night around 1:30 or 2 in the morning quote so I figured everyone would be asleep end quote in other words when he took Mr dockor back he was aware that there were not witnesses to his going in the residence with this man who would become his victim and that reflects an awareness an appreciation of wrongfulness in his being conscious of the presence or absence of witnesses second I asked him what steps he took to avoid being caught or what he had done which in this case of course as with the rest involved having killed Mr doc Stater and he said that he always waited until his grandmother went to church before he would dismember the victims whom he had at his grandmother's house and that he placed newspapers over the windows in the area where he was dismembering them of course to see so that nobody could look in both were steps he took to avoid detection during the dismemberment which of course is after the murders mean to say killings it was after the killing that he had occasion to do the dismemberment and to take those precautions I asked him directly in this and several other instances at the time you killed him James docor did you appreciate that it was wrong to do that and he replied that he did also in this instance he used a knife to dismember Mr docor and having done so used a sledgehammer to break up the bones and place the remains in plastic bags and threw them in the trash all of that was by way of disposing of evidence and the need to dispose of evidence indicates an awareness of wrongfulness at the time that he was taking those steps to dispose of the evidence also he told me that after he had killed Mr docer and before he had dismembered him he wrapped him up in a sheet and placed him in the fruit Celler which was approximately 7 in the morning I need to correct myself he didn't tell me that he told the police that according to one of the police reports that action of wrapping the body in a sheet and placing it in the fruit Celler until his grandmother had gone to church indicates an awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct in other words he didn't leave the body right there for his grandmother to find or invite her down to see it or take the body up to show her because he knew it was wrong he hid the body and of course um in this instance as in the others he took his victim to a private place before in fact killing him he did not do this in the view of witnesses and that reflects an awareness of the wrongfulness would you share with the jury your evidence your findings as to whether Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the killing of James docor the first uh piece of evidence is that Mr dmer gave Mr docor a drink of coffee that he had doctored with pills and with liquor until Mr docor fell asleep and only then strangled him that activity which reflects the planning of having crushed the tablets the mixing of the drink waiting until the victim was asleep before killing him indicates that Mr dmer was not behaving impulsively he was biting his time with a plan to wait until the moment he regarded as appropriate to kill and so the killing was not impulsive but rather a planned and deliberate more carefully executed act secondly Mr dmer mentioned in describing the killing of Mr doc stator something he told me elsewhere in the interview which is that after the events at the Ambassador Hotel quote any thoughts of holding back from doing that sort of thing just seemed to Fall by the wayside end quote in other words he stopped trying to resist any urges he may have had to do the things he was doing next I asked him if he continued to drink with Mr docer after he already had had him back at his grandmother's house with him and he said that he did and I asked him why and he said quote because the effects from the beer in the bar were wearing off I enjoy the feeling end quote I asked him if he liked a certain level of intoxication or alcohol and he said that he did and I asked what was that level you liked to keep yourself at and his answer wase just a level where your inhibitions are lowered end quote so he would specifically titrate the dose adjust the dose of alcohol to that point where he had his inhibitions lowered and could go about doing these things that otherwise he would feel too anxious or inhibited to do I asked him at what point did did you decide to kill him and he replied that it was about 4: or 5: in the morning when he decided to kill him well that shows that it was a conscious decision to kill Mr dock stator which means that it was not an impulsive act he made a decision before he took steps acting on the decision I asked him whether if Mr docor had agreed to take a trip with him or go to another place with him for a few weeks whether he would have killed him and he said no not at all in other words that he felt no compulsion to kill him rather would not even have killed him or had the desire to do so if Mr dockor had voluntarily had the kind of sexual activity with Mr dmer that he was is interested in this kind of gentle lying together and touching and kissing and masturbating and so on for as long as Mr dmer wanted to be able to do those things I also asked quote if your grandmother or another witness had walked in just when you were about to kill him would you have end quote and his answer was no and so that indicates that he subjectively believes that he had the will to stop if the circumstances had made it such that he was going to be caught if he didn't stop which again indicates that there is no compulsion overwhelming his will at the time of that [Music] killing finally Mr dmer indicated that after Mr docor fell asleep and this came from an interview with the police not with me Mr dmer pulled out an old sheet and put that sheet down on the ground in the basement because the basement floor was chilly and then he put Mr doc stator on the sheet and strangled him well that sequence of taking the time to put a sheet on the floor before strangling his already drugged and unconscious victim is again evidence that this was not an impulsive act but rather a more deliberate act in which he is taking the time to arrange for his comfort before engaging in the Act of Killing that there is no Force pushing him to do this without regard to the consequences that there is no um sudden impulsive behavior on his part involved but rather a more cautious deliberate planful activity did you evaluate Jeffrey D's mental state at the time of the Richard Guerrero first-degree murder count that is in the time at the time of March of 1988 yes would you share with the jury your findings with respect to that responsibility with respect to uh Mr Guerrero's death well on the issue of of whether Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct first Mr dmer took the victim to a private place before he engaged in the the charged Act of Killing Him taking him to a private place is an indication of knowing that it's not desirable to have witnesses to the kind of activity he was going to engage in and that reflects an appreciation of the wrongfulness of such activity he said that he chose Mr Guero in part because he had been alone at the time he also liked the physical profile which was important to him when I asked how did you choose him he pointed out that um that he was alone and he fit the profile he took a taxi with him and I asked where he had the taxi drop him off he said always on 57th in Lincoln which is about two blocks from my house I said why there and he said so there would be no the taxi driver wouldn't be able to tell where we were getting off end quote that's an indication of his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct that he didn't want the taxi driver to be able to identify where he and this victim were going I asked at what point he decided to dismember him and he answered that was done the following morning I asked why and he said it was just too risky to keep the body in the house as long as I kept doc stator whom he had kept for a longer period That's how I felt so I did it quickly then end quote this indicates his appreciation of the risk of being caught with evidence of that kind which shows his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct I asked what steps he had taken to avoid being caught and he answered same as doc stator same scenario namely the dismemberment and disposal of of the body in a way that would not be traceable back to him I asked him directly here at the time you killed him did you appreciate that that was wrong and he answered that he did here two uh he told me that he cut the part of the body into pieces and smashed the bones apart while his grandmother was at church so he waited until there was a time when he would not be caught doing it again showing that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct would you share with the jury your findings as to whether Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the first-degree murder of Richard Guerrero I asked Mr dmer whether he'd been drinking before he went out that night and he said that he had been which he told me elsewhere was one of the ways he overcame the inhibitions against meeting people um more importantly I asked if he continued drinking after they were together and he said yes that he continued drinking Irish Cream I asked him whether at the time he had the taxi driver drop him off a few blocks away he did that because he'd already determined that he was going to kill him and he responded that that was the case this indicates that it was not an impulsive act that before they were even out of the taxi he'd already made a decision to kill this man I asked on another occasion however uh shortly thereafter at what point he decided to kill him and at that point he said that he made that decision about 2 hours after the man was with him so there was a contradiction there as to when he actually made the decision I asked the sequence of events and here too as before he indicated that first he administered a drugged drink to his victim and then after his victim was unconscious from the effects of that he strangled him which again indicates that it was not an impulsive act but rather that he' taken steps to prepare for the killing and as it were to Anese his victim before he killed him I asked him whether if Mr Guero had agreed to stay with him or go someplace with him he would have killed him and he said no he would not have killed him then that too indicates that his behavior was such that he had the capacity to inform his conduct because through that answer he's saying that had the victim consented to be his sexual partner he would not have killed him I asked if his grandmother had walked in the room or some other witness at the time he was killing him whether he would have done so and and his response was no which indicates that subjectively Mr dmer had the view that he was in control of his conduct such that he could have stopped if he were being discovered in the act of strangling someone and of course for this case as with uh each of the cases Mr dmer delayed The Killing until after he had gone through an elaborate series of steps of selecting a victim bringing the victim home and while at a residence with the victim causing him to become unconscious all before the Act of Killing Him all of which goes to show that this was not an impulsive act but rather a complex series of planned events that he executed and as with the other cases um this Bomer here continued drinking after he had the victim in order to decrease his inhibitions so that he could go through with the Act of Killing I've asked you your findings with respect to those two first slayings and you've elicited to the jury your findings in both the issue of wrongfulness and the issue of Conformity I have not however asked you your conclusions and I would like to touch first on your conclusions with the doc stator then your conclusions with respect to uh Mr Guerrero first you've given us your findings with respect to wrongfulness whether the defendant could appreciate the wrongfulness the findings you made could I ask you your conclusions after making those findings on wrongfulness with respect to Mr doctor doctor did you reach a conclusion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty within your field of expertise as to whether or not Mr dmer lacked the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he killed Mr docer I did reach such an opinion and what was your conclusion my conclusion was that at the time of killing Mr docor Mr dmer did not lack that is he retained he had sufficient capacity substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct you've also shared with the jury your findings with respect to whether or not he possessed or lacked substantial Conformity capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law when he slayed Mr docor you've given the jury your findings I would now ask your conclusion based on those findings with respect to whether or not at the time that the defendant killed Mr docor did he possess or lack substantial capacity to control his to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law it's my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty based on the evidence that I've described that at that time Mr dmer did have substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law again turning to Mr Guerrero You' shared with the jury your findings the factual type findings with respect to the wrongfulness issue I would now add ask your conclusion as to whether or not at the time that the defendant killed Mr Guerrero did he lack or did he possess the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct in my opinion at that time Mr dmer had substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct you've also shared with the jury your findings with respect to whether or not at the time the defendant killed Mr Guerrero your findings that whether or not at that time he possessed or lacked substantial capacity to form his conform his conduct to the requirements of law can you tell us what your conclusions were with respect to that issue to a reasonable degree of medical certainty yes based on the evidence that I've described it's my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that at the time of killing Mr Guerrero Mr dmer had substantial capacity to form his conduct to the requirements of the law I would then ask you to turn to the third account in the slang in the in the information did you evaluate Jeffrey D's mental state at the time that he committed first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Sears that being honor about March 26th 1989 yes I did would you share with the jury your findings with respect to whether or not Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct when he killed Anthony Sears first of all Mr dmer told me that he had the friend of Mr Sears drop them off at 57th and Lincoln which was to avoid being observed going into the residence but in addition when I asked him whether he was taking a chance in letting a friend drive him even that close to his grandmother's house uh he indicated that he was and that he was uh aware of that risk but that he found Mr Sears sufficiently attractive that it was a risk that was worth taking that indicates that he was aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct in that he would not wish a witness to see exactly where he was going with this man I asked him directly whether at the time he killed Mr Sears he appreciated that it was wrong to do so and he said yes and at that point added it'll be the same answers for all of them so for that point on I did not ask him specifically about each case but rather asked him the general question whether the time at the time of each of the murders each of the killings with which he's charged he appreciated that it was wrong to engage in The Killing and he replied yes that he did likewise I asked him whether at the time of each of these killings for which he's charged if the victim had agreed to voluntarily remain with him would he have killed him and he said no he wouldn't have and I asked him whether at the time of each of these killings with which he's charged if a witness had walked in as he was doing the killing whether he would have refrained from killing and he indicated that he would have with respect specifically to Mr Sears he told me that he had done the dismembering when the house was empty as with the other two that is waiting until his grandmother would not be present before he engaged in those tasks he told me that uh on this occasion he called a taxidermist and said that he wanted to preserve a rabbit head and asked what the taxidermist would recommend for that while the fact that he said that it was a rabbit head that he wanted to preserve is an indication that he would have known it was wrong to say that he had human body parts that he wanted to preserve so he made up a ruse to prevent revealing the real task for which he wanted a preservative in this instance uh Mr dmer did in fact preserve the head of Mr Sears in a Samsonite cosmetic case which he kept in his locker at the chocolate company and it was important to him to be able to preserve it intact I asked him whether he thought at the time that it was risky to keep a severed head in his locker at work and he said that it was though there was one occasion on which he did take it out to look at it he kept it otherwise in a loed case and that the uh and his awareness that it was risky is further evidence of his appreciation of wrongfulness uh I asked him more specifically at what time he decided to dismember Mr Sears and he said about 10:00 in the morning that same morning I asked him why and he said because the house was going to be empty for about 4 hours it was Easter morning so that was the most opportune time I thought to do it if I could have kept him longer then I would have all of him but I couldn't his decision to engage in dismemberment at a time when his grandmother would be away for a substantial period of time was further evidence of his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct I asked what steps he took to avoid being caught and he told me the same as with the others which indicates that he appreciated the wrongfulness and was trying to avoid being caught and as before he took the victim to a private place before killing him indicating it uh the sense to avoid being witnessed and doing that as a result of those findings and your other observations and what you had learned did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not the defendant at the time he slayed uh Mr Anthony Sears appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct yes I did and what opinion was that that he did appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and did he have the sub substantial capacity to appreciate that wrongfulness yes would you share with the jury your findings with respect to whether or not Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time that he slayed Anthony Sears that is in March of 1989 honor about March 26 1989 first of all Mr dmer uh did not excuse me immediately strangle Mr Sears upon seeing his attraction physique but rather engaged in the uh usual elaborate series of behaviors to bring him to his home to have him alone by himself to drug him before strangling him all of which indicates the ability to delay whatever gratification he might be seeking and that this is not an impulsive act but rather a planned deliberate act once at the home he did make the drink for him and strangled him I asked if he had himself continued to drink after they were in the house and he said yes he had continued to drink Irish Cream again to uh as as he indicated was true for all of these to overcome his inhibitions Against The Killing itself I asked at what point he decided to kill Mr Sears and he said after about 3 hours towards the morning now I should point out that some of these questions I don't mean to be misleading you um but sometimes when I ask at what point did you decide to do something I think he's telling me when he did it rather than when he made the decision and I'll try to quote him exactly but I think this is an example of is saying that when he in fact um did these activities so he said it was after about 3 hours and towards morning that he decided to kill Mr Sears at whatever time he in fact did making the decision to kill prior to doing it indicates that it is not an impulsive act but rather an act that has been planned I asked him here uh uh the questions are already alluded to whether if he had agreed to stay voluntarily with him he would have still killed Mr Sears and indicated he would not have killed him I asked whether if his grandmother or another witness had come in he would still have killed and he said no that he would not have all of which indicates that it was not either an impulsive or a compulsive act and all of which is evidence that at the time of this killing Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law and let me rephrase that test all right so that uh we with respect then may I ask if based on your observations and the findings you've just presented to the jury did you form an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time that he slayed Anthony Sears in my opinion at the time of killing Anthony Sears Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the [Music] law I turn your attention then to the slaying of Raymond Smith also known as Ricky beaks and ask you did you evaluate Jeffrey D's mental state at the time of the slaying of Ricky beaks that is the first-degree intentional homicide occurring during the early during the spring or early summer of 1990 to it probably in May of 1990 at 924 North 25th Street yes I did I think later information indicated that was probably May 20th or so of 1990 would you share with the jury your findings with respect to whether Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed first-degree intentional homicide against the person of Raymond Smith honor about May 20 of 1990 based on uh what we had already discussed and my knowledge of um the lease agreement that Mr dmer had signed I asked him after he described the basics of this killing about the fact this was the first time he had his own apartment uh when he had brought a victim back whom he killed and he uh the way the conversation went was this I asked would this have been the first time that you really had one at your own place he said it was and I continued where nobody could walk in on you he said yeah I said so this is the first time that you've really gotten yourself on the way to setup and he said right I said did did that make it better than the other times and he said yes it did didn't have to worry so much about being discovered I said less anxiety and he said less anxiety the fact that he would become anxious at the prospect of Discovery is an indication of his awareness that is his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the crime also in this instance when describing how he disposed of evidence of the crime which is itself an indication of his appreciation of the wrongfulness he specifically pointed out that here he couldn't Smash Up The Skeleton he said I couldn't do that in the apartment um presumably because the noise of using a sledgehammer or rocks to break up bones in a in an apartment with people below and above and on both sides he said couldn't do that in an apartment so I went to this restaurant supply store bought this large 80 gallon stainless steel Kettle and put a couple of boxes of that soy solution in and he described how he disposed of the bones that he might otherwise have smashed up the awareness that smashing bones was not a good idea in the apartment is an indication of his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his acts and a concern for being detective in addition Mr dmer in this instance as with the others uh inducted the actions with which he's charged the killing only when alone and not in the presence of witnesses having taken his victim to a private place and of course as with all of the homicides all of the uh killings with which he's charged Mr dmer said that at the time he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct as a result of your observations in these finding ings did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct had some substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time that he slayed Ray Smith yes and what is that opinion in my opinion Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time that he killed Raymond Smith would to share with the jury your findings as to whether or not Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his requirement to to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time that he committed first a intentional homicide against Raymond Smith well in this instance Mr dmer uh said in his description of of what had happened quote he wanted more money in the morning I agreed and I gave him the drink mixture fell asleep strangled him end quote the indication here is that he gave him the drug mixture before strangling him which indicates this is not an impulsive act but in addition that uh this particular victim had made a demand for more money which was a demand that Mr dmer was going to have to confront if he allowed the man to regain Consciousness he told me in in the interviews that he uh at least felt threatened by U by this man I asked him um what he thought was going to happen when he went home with this man whom he said was uh was not gay uh and was really only after money and he said I found him very attractive so I just Ed the techniques that I've been using up until that point drug him strangle him end quote I asked did you figure before you even left the bar that's what you were going to do and he said it was indicating that before he even left the bar with Raymond Smith he had thought that he would kill the man which indicates that this is not an impulsive action rather a planned deliberate activity during the same conversation when I was pointing out that it was the first time he'd done this at his own apartment and he' said it was less anxious about people coming in I asked whether it was more leisurely under these circumstances and he agreed that it was more leisurely which again is an indication that this is not someone driven by compulsion or someone who is acting impulsively but rather someone who is going about what gives him pleasure at a now leisurely Pace without so much fear of someone else coming in and as with the other cases there is the more General evidence of taking the time to bring someone back alone drinking alcohol to overcome his inhibitions and his statements to the effect that he could have refrained if the man had volunteered to spend more time with him or if uh there were going to be any witnesses as a result of the your observations and these findings did you form an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time that he slayed Raymond Smith yes I did and what is that opinion in my opinion Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time that he killed Raymond Smith did you evaluate Jeffrey D's mental State at the time that he committed first-degree intentional homicide against Edward Smith that is honor about June 24 1990 yes I did would you share with the jury your findings with respect to whether Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct when he slayed Edward Smith Mr dmer indicated during my interviews with him that he had taken Edward Smith back to his apartment alone and while there had as with in other instances drugged him and strangled him the evidence that he appreciated the wrongfulness includes his going alone to a private place before doing this is disposing of evidence of the crime in this case he said he threw the flesh out in the trash the care with which he dried bones from Edward Smith having laid them out on a sheet of plastic he told me the fact that he cut up the ID of Edward Smith and and cut up the clothes and threw them out in the trash which while we were discussing Edward Smith he made the broader statement uh that he always cut up the ID and the clothing and threw it out in the trash though I pointed out to him that there were several he hadn't gotten round to at the time he was arrested he agreed that that was so in addition to these uh it was at around this time that Mr dmer had taken some more substantial steps to prevent detection here he was at his own apartment and I asked him whether he had put any extra security in the apartment and he said yeah I was hooking up that black and& Decker security home alarm system I asked him you realized there was a problem and he said that he did and I saidwhat was that and he said I had bones in there in other words he knew he appreciated the wrongfulness and the problem that could emerge if he was discovered with these things I asked what would prevent the manager from coming in or a burglar and he said oh the manager had to give you a couple hours notice before he could come in burglars oh you'd have to get a burglar alarm system like I did and I said that's why you got it he answered right I said what would happen if a burglar broke in and he said who knows and he um he laughed at that he understood the humor of of that idea and said I don't know there would have been trouble though I wanted to avoid that I spent about $400 on the system he described that he installed the burglar alarm system himself I asked what else he did as a precaution he he said installed a chain lock on the sliding door between the bedroom area and the living room and installed a locking door knob on the bedroom room door I said because the original one you couldn't lock from the inside and he said right and also at this time we discussed uh another purchase he'd made but it's a purchase he didn't make until January of 1991 he said that he had a small Radio Shack door alarm on the front door and that there was a fake video camera uh in his words and also had a fake video camera put up in the corner of the wall just as a visual deterrent end quote so he had purchased later in January a fake video surveillance camera so that anyone seeing that would think they might be on videotape all of that is an indication of Mr D's appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct and as a result of your observation and these findings did you form an opinion within a reasonable degree of certainty in the field of medicine as to whether or not the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his or had the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he slayed Edward Smith taking all of the information I have into account in my uh opinion with reasonable medical certainty at the time of the killing of Edward Smith Mr dmer did possess substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct would you share with the jury your findings as to whether or not Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time that he slayed Edward Smith well in this instance as uh in the others Mr dmer first drugged Mr Smith before strangling him indicating that it was not an impulsive act but rather at first he made the preparation of drugging him uh secondly he was as in the other instances waiting for a time and place of his choosing before engaging in the actions with which he's charged thirdly Mr D's own statements regarding the fact that he would have refrained from doing this had there been Witnesses fourthly Mr dmer statements that he would have refrained from doing this had the victim voluntarily stayed with him and lastly uh Mr dmer stating that he drank to overcome the inhibitions against killing at the time of each of these 15 charged killings as a result of your observations in these findings did you form an opinion within a reasonable degree of medic medical certainty as to whether or not Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time he slayed Edward Smith yes I did and what are those conclusions in my opinion Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of killing Edward Smith did you evaluate Jeffrey D's mental State at the time that he slayed enest Miller and that is first-degree intentional homicide honor about September 3 1990 yes I did would you share with the jury your findings with respect to whether Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct when he killed Ernest Miller yes first Mr dmer own statement that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of each of the killings secondly the fact that he took the victim to a private place behind closed doors before killing him and thirdly the efforts he made to avoid detection which in this instance uh were a bit different from others and that he said that he was halfway through the dismembering process when he had to uh put that work aside and stop to go to his real employment and so um he left while still in the middle of that task went to work and when he returned from work in the morning the uh he found that the manager had called the police because of the odor in the hallway and that uh he thought the police had kicked in a door of another apartment uh two doors down from his thinking that someone had died and Mr dmer said he found that experience frightening and finished the dismemberment task quickly that morning the fact that he found it in to come so close to detection as an indication of his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct in this instance he made use of acid in two 30 gallon trash barrels that he' purchased in order to dispose of soft tissue by acidifying it and he said that he had placed muriatic acid in the barrels along with the tissue and left the materials in there for two weeks and then flushed the remains from that process down the toilet the uh steps he took to dispose of the remains are an indication of his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct as a result of these your observations and these findings did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct or had substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he killed Ernest Miller yes and what is that opinion on the basis of basis of all of the evidence I've reviewed it's my opinion that at the time that he killed Ernest Miller Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of of his conduct would you share with the jury your findings as to whether Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time that he slayed Ernest Miller well in this instance Mr dmer said that he had only a few pills left and so after having initially drugged his victim um was not going to be able to keep him unconscious for as long as he had with the others ordinarily he would enjoy them sexually while they were unconscious and drugged before he would strangle them but in this instance he had to move more quickly because of the limited dose of medication he had available and so here he described having made a decision of how to do it uh saying that he used the knife rather than to um strangle in the usual way uh in a police report Mr dmer was uh quoted as saying that potion that he had given of sleeping of um of alcohol and drugs was beginning to wear off and that the individual was rather strong and muscular and Mr dmer did not feel that be able to strangle him successfully without the victim putting up a fight and So to avoid having that happen he stabbed him once in a vital region in order to kill the man uh so here unlike the other instances there's a decision to choose a particular method of killing to fit a change of circumstance and that choice of a different method to fit the circumstance of the victims being strong and not sufficiently unconscious is an indication that Mr dmer is behaving in a planful way rather than behaving impulsively without consideration to what's happening and in this instance I had a discussion in some detail with Mr dmer about the means of disposing of the remains that he had acidified um since having done the acidification he had barrels full of what he described as a sludge like material of um tissue that had been acidified and I asked him um about how he would do this how he would flush it down the toilet he said I just used the plastic scoop and scooped it out into the toilet and flushed it I asked did you ever get any acid burns he said no no I said did you get acid on your hands and he indicated that he did I said you were very careful and he said I was I always used plastic gloves yeah I then asked the way you do it with the toilet is put in a certain amount and then flush it or it flushed automatically and he said put in a certain amount and flush after about it was one of these small plastic round trash barrels they sit on the floor I'd scoop it in after about five Scoops I'd flush it repeat it until all of it was gone those statements indicating the care with which he engaged in even this stage of the procedure wearing plastic gloves using a scoop and flushing the toilet periodically without it overflowing or without causing a a plumbing incident is an indication that his behavior is in contrast to someone whose Behavior might be more unregulated and wild and uncontrolled this is cautious planned carefully thought out Behavior as a result of your observations and findings did you form an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time that he slayed Ernest Miller yes I did and what is that opinion in my opinion at the time of killing Ernest Miller Mr dmer possessed substantial Capac capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law did you evaluate Jeffrey D's mental state at the time of the slaying of David Thomas that is honor about September 23 or 24 of 1990 yes I did would you share with the jury your findings with respect to whether Mr dmer appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed first-degree intentional homicide against David Thomas first there is Mr D's statement that at the time of each of the killings he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct secondly there is the fact that he took Mr Thomas to a private place where Witnesses would not be present and thirdly there here's the evidence of his taking steps to avoid detection by way of dismembering the body and acidifying the flesh which he again described to me as a result of these observations and findings did you form an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether Mr dmer appreciated the wrongful wrongfulness of his conduct when he killed David Thomas based on those facts and all of the other evidence available to me I formed the opinion with reasonable medical certainty that at the time of killing David Thomas Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct would you share with the jury your findings as to whether Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time that he slayed David Thomas in addition to the um evidence that is true for all of the 15 charged crimes in this instance Mr dmer told the police that once he had David Thomas back to his apartment he thought that David Thomas wasn't really his type and he killed him because he had already given him the sleeping potion and thought that Thomas would wake up and be angry that came from a um police report in which Mr dmer was interviewed I asked Mr dmer about that I said you told the police this didn't you and he said yeah uh I'm sorry he said right yeah he wasn't as good-looking as some of them we then had another discussion however about this and it led me to some confusion about exactly what he was saying and my understanding of where that conversation went was that um Mr dmer wanted to clarify that he had found Mr Thomas appealing that's why he brought him back in the first place and he wouldn't have brought him back with him at all had he not found found him sexually attractive but um the point that bears on his capacity to conform his conduct to the law is that this is an instance in which he indicated that there came a time when his reason for doing this particular killing unlike the others was to avoid having this man wake up and be angry with him that seemed to play a part in the Raymond Smith killing as well where there was concern about his being rolled by this man in the morning after he demanded more money um and it plays A Part here it seems in the David Thomas case as well also it was on this occasion in that discussion of um whether he found David Thomas attractive that I asked Mr dmer um whether there had not been times that the alcohol wore off and he found men less attractive than they had seemed to him when he had initially brought them home and he indicated that that had occurred a few times and that those men had left and that there were a couple who had left his grandmother's house after he let his alcohol level lower to the point that he no longer found the men as attractive as a result of those observ your observations and those findings did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not Jeffrey dmer possessed or lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time that he slayed David Thomas based upon all the evidence that I've had occasion to consider I formed the opinion that at the time of killing David Thomas Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law and was that reached to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that opinion yes it was did you evaluate Jeffrey D's metal State Mr I think we're about to move to a different victim and I think this would be a good time to take a recess then cour some recess all right