Download Subtitles for Jeffrey Dahmer - Dr. Park Dietz PT8 Video

[Music] you please there is a um question that I have to ask you about the killings and these are homicide charges as we all know and that he has pled guilty to as you know I have to ask you that at the very moment whether he liked killing or not at the very moment of his killing with whatever disorder he had as you have said it was that present at the moment of his killing whatever the disorder you said it is was that present at the moment of his killing the disorders that I diagnosed Mr D having have been present throughout his adult life including the times of the killings right so that if he was unable because of that disorder if he lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law because of a mental disease or qualification that that it meets the the standard that would have been in existence at the moment of the killings correct you understand my question no I don't okay here here's what I want to know we know he had a mental disorder you have stated it your way Dr Fel called it what he called it Dr Freedman Right Down the Line everybody's called it what they felt they could reason it to to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty all right I want to know if what he had as far as you are concerned was in existence at the moment of the killing there's a little different flavor to it go ahead do you understand what I'm saying yes what um what I diagnosed Mr dmer is having and whatever the true diagnosis is even if I were incorrect for some reason there uh whatever diagnosis is the case with him was present at the time of the killings now I want to just I'm on the downside of our discussion so you're going to be we're going to be finished as soon as I can get through some things he seemed during the time of his adult life to change his fantasies have different ones for instance you have testified that when he was as young as 16 in his masturbatory conduct his one of his uh fantasies as I believe you have expressed it was of a young male of the proper habitus and the viscera looking at the viscera of that person became part of that fantasy is that right I think that's right there's some confusion uh about that point in in at least in my interviews with Mr darmer and I didn't find a discussion of the point in anyone else's interviews with him let let let me ask you if you will go to your page four of your report my report yes sir the last sentence says by late adolescence thoughts of rendering a victim unconscious and of exposing the vcra was a regular were a regular though not invariant component of his sexual fantasies did I read it right yes that's right how in his fantasies was he going to expose the viscera without killing the person do you understand in the fantasies it uh doesn't matter you see all he has to do is fantasize but the fantasy that he was having on the Expo exposing of the visera was that person in that fantasy dead to allow him to fantasize and exposing the VIS do you understand my question I understand what you're saying but Mr dmer was never quite clear on the contents and there's a little doubt as to whether he had the fantasy that early at one point he told me yes he did at another point he said no he didn't and then he said maybe he did about that particular fantasy at that time but nonetheless in your report you conclude by late adolescence thought of rendering a victim and conscious and exposing the vistra were a regular though not invariant component of his sexual fantasies so at least it was discussed yes now late adolescences 16 17 that's what I was referring to you know that with Mr Hicks after he killed Mr Hicks he did in fact expose the viscera and he did ejaculate onto the body yes in the course of your experience as a psychiatrist dealing with everybody that you've ever dealt with have you ever seen anyone whatever you want to call the impairment have you ever seen anyone do the kind of things he did to not only one human but to a number of human beings and I say trying to make them zombies or uh ejaculating the visca or laying with them and having an anal sex after death and or before death and or while unconscious or eating body parts or exposing skulls and all of the above have you ever ever had anybody like that I've I have had cases in which individuals uh eviscerated ejaculated on the viscera cases in which people have eaten body parts cases in which people retain body parts cases in which people laid with the dead body cases in which there was an anal penetration of a dead body and I forget what else you may have said but I've seen a case other cases with every element of that have you seen one case where all of those things were embodied in the same case and I don't think any of the other cases have every single one of those elements simultaneously now let's talk if we can about delusions delusions are a false belief no basis in reality that a person believes for what a period of time tell tell me Define delusion uh a delusion is a false belief resulting from a mental illness okay that is not susceptible to disproof with evidence there are various kinds of delusions some of them are completely implausible and those are called bizarre delusions such as believing that one's brain has turned a cheese or believing that one's the Emperor Napoleon uh others of them are not completely impossible but are simply wrong and those are considered not to be bizarre delusions here's what I want to ask you in your report you attributed Jeffrey dmer to telling you that he ate body parts in 10 different 10 different victims or 10 different occasions which 10 different occasions did he tell you that he was eating him because he wanted to have those people become a part of him he said originally it was out of curiosity and experimentation because the other things weren't providing much satisfaction he wanted to try something new so he was um I would describe it as flirting with some other activity to see if it would be fulfilling but he discovered that it did uh support a fantasy of being with the whole person sometimes because he'd use photographs he'd taken um particularly in the case of Mr Miller to support that fantasy and that he also came to have this sense of making the person a part of himself as well delusional belief that is that a delusional belief that if you ate something of another person that that for one moment could ever become a part of you would that be a delusional belief it's not a delusion for a couple reasons it's a false Bel well that's arguable since in fact the protein is incorporated into the muscle of the person eating it I think a lot of people are familiar with the notion that you are what you eat I heard that how about the person who has a stake and feels that the steer from Once the stake came is now part of him would that be a false belief I'm talking about the steer itself I mean you see the steer and you see it slaughtered and then they you know let's take something we all do not all do but deer hunt the hunter that comes home having shot the buck with the big horns who then has a a roast from the from it says I'm eating that to his co-workers I mean his co- Hunters I'm eating that cuz I want that that I shot with that big rack to be a part of me is that a delusional would that be a delusional belief no okay let's talk about the altar we have a man who has kept 10 skulls and has attempted to use epoxy glue to make some skeletons is that am I accurate so far he tell you about that he did tell me that who had an idea of this altar from whence he would sit in a chair and draw power from what he was viewing so that amongst other things he might make some money in real estate become proficient in real estate is that a false belief if he were to believe that that was going to work and go about trying to convince others that it's so and had no doubts about it and you couldn't talk him out of it with evidence to the contrary that that could qualify but that's not how it was okay that's understandable I understand if that would be a delusional belief and you said it wouldn't what if it's just kind of a way of passing time that is taking 10 skulls from a fellas from 10 fellas that you've dissected and just sitting there just looking at them and remembering what they were like when they were alive and how much you enjoyed him and all of the acts that you did to cause that to happen would that person who was doing that be doing anything delusional or would that be just kind of like a fell looking at his trophies would be like a hunter looking in his trophy room you yet yesterday indicated to us that this is somewhat analogous to a youngster going and getting a baseball sign by a major league baseball player and then that that signature makes him part did you say he becomes like part of the the baseball player is that what you were telling us I was talking about the phenomenon of individuals wanting to incorporate someone else as part of themselves one of the examples I used was trying to obtain artifacts um of famous people or in another time artifacts of uh of the Saints for example would be used to try to have a part of something very special and keep it with oneself Dr deets Jeffrey dmer attempted homemade labotomy he had reported to you as you had reported us that he was trying to create a sex slave correct yes right you know as a medical doctor do you not that that goal of his on the basis of how he was trying to do it was an impossibility that that what was his I miss trying the frontal lobe the intellectual lobe to cut off another person's will to retain them forever as a sex slave was not medically possible to do a homemade labotomy or was it well first of all destroying someone's will with a single incision would not be an easy task sure but a homemade labotomy is a possible task the effects of an actual prefrontal labotomy wouldn't be precisely what he wanted he if he'd been able to achieve it by cutting exactly the right part or destroying it he would have had someone whose emotions were out of control and who would laugh in a silly way at things that weren't really funny and who would cry at the drop of a hat over things that weren't really sad and who was terrible at making plans for the future um but it wouldn't quite destroy what he wanted to get rid of the will I'm sorry is it your belief that he was successful the first time that he tried that there wouldn't have been any of these other murders that create an ad zombie do you really believe that when he told you that that fact that if he had that's what he wanted and if he had been able to achieve it would have been all over with no more murders you did you believe that not exactly I think the the um attraction of that particular partner would have worn off because he's not a person whose um character is such that a monogamous single relationship was likely to work any more than a man who finally uh manages to sexually um um have contact with a woman who's attractive to him will necessarily be satisfied with that one permanently but but we heard they were one of his choices so when he is reporting what his choices are to you you're not necessarily believing that that would have been the final thing anyway correct that's right I don't think we can tell from his hierarchy that if he could have had it this way he'd never have done anything else in other words when he said to you listen when I went to these bath houses I had to put these people unconscious and the reason the only reason I put them unconscious is they wanted to do uh anal SE and and and I didn't want that I want them to do it to me so this way I had control over them and I was the one calling the shots as what was going to be done that's one of the things he reported to you yes that and of course the control over how long they'd spend with him okay now if Jeffrey dmer the very first time he went to a bath house had decided that he didn't mind that kind of activity the kind of activity I just described it was okay with him is it your opinion that we wouldn't have been talking about him later rendering people unconscious or would that still have happened understand my question I understand what you're saying but the answer depends largely on what choices he were to make because at all times he could have chosen not to indulge those of his fantasies that harmed other people or that were criminal or that required um taking such measures as he did so what I think I'm hearing you saying is that at all times at any time down this killing road that he was on so that all times on this killing Road and if you can't see it back at all times on this killing Road Jeffrey dmer could gotten up one morning and said that's it I'm do he had the ability to do that that what you tell us certainly had he chosen to continue on in the same course of conduct as the evidence uh in July and in June and in May and in April if he chose after Tracy Edwards to say I'm not going to stop we could have expected a rise in pretty much the same line but with his mindset is it was going up the line drinking the same amount if he drank the same amount had the same apartment same amount of money hadn't gotten caught managed to keep the disposal outflow as high as the intake then he would have continued I think and it is your professional opinion to a reasonable degree of psychiatric C that he could have stopped any time just got up and said my willpower says stop that the recurrent intense sexual urges of his paraphilic disorder were not so severe that he could have stopped without more than willpower his willpower was strong enough to say stop well the urges are no more severe than anyone else's sexual urges it's a matter of deciding how one will fulfill them at other times he decided to fulfill them in lawful ways at these times he did not if I understand what you're saying is that no person's sexual urges can ever become so strong that they can't say stop I object to that this is referring to this particular man not a speculative I'm not talking about Dr de Essen talking about you indicated withdraw the question you indicated that dmer could stop at any time because his sexual urges were no different than anyone else's sexual urges is that what you said well I indicated that with respect to sexual urges the intensity of his sexual urges is no different from the intensity of normal sexual urges but mind you sexual urges aren't why he was killing he didn't have sexual urges to be killing so it's a little misleading to be talking about the intensity of sexual urges why was he um why was he trying to create a zombie for what purpose in order to be able to have handy someone to use for sexual purposes why was he killing in some instances to avoid a confrontation that would follow in the morning in some instances um because well in one instance because he had to destroy the evidence of the brain damaged young man that he'd been seen with by the police and others and in General um because he wanted to spend more time enjoying sexual activity with these individuals now how about then his attempts to alter The Killing by using the mannequin and going to the graveyard how does that fit into this program of of his sexual urges the mannequin was an effort to find a uh stimulus to his fantasies that would be uh useful for a time in fact was for two weeks he enjoyed masturbating to this mannequin of a male that he' stolen from a shopping center and um and which was clothed and uh that was successful just as looking at videotapes had been successful and looking at photographs had been successful and fantasy alone had been successful but his grandmother found the mannequin and he got rid of it but it it was successful that is he was able with any of those stimuli to masturbate and have an orgasm which relieves sex drive until it's time for the next urge and in the same way that he had done that he thought perhaps he would try to find a fresh corpse through going to the funerals in the cemetery and so uh I have no doubt that had he been able to obtain that corpse that he would have found that useful and enjoyable too doc doctor do you believe that Mr flowers would have been a victim had his grandmother not walked in on the for a and the two of them together you know who I'm talking about yes I do I think so yes do you think that the youngster that was able to get out the one he hit in over the head with the Mallet would have been dead had he had him unconscious from the Striking on the Mallet yes yeah you treat paraphilia I haven't for years now how long was the last time you treated paraph well since I stopped doing any treatment and started doing forensic psychiatry and that was um about 1982 when I stopped doing treatment how about necrophilic have you treated any of ever no I don't think we had any at Hopkins and or at Bridgewater one of the things that you wrote about Forensic psychiatrists is that neither the legal system system nor Society needs Forensic psychiatrists who believe that an ability to testify qualifies them to answer any question they need true experts in criminal Behavior mental disability forensic child psychiatry or legal aspects of psychiatric practice and that is a statement that you made and you're obviously committed to that that sounds like what you should say I want to ask you is not one when they start discussing this compulsion about a person's given sexual disorder is not a person who treats those people on a daily basis whether they be one or 5050 isn't that a person who be can become an expert in the mental disability of the paraphilia that they're teaching that they're they're treating would you agree with that of course sure and if those people say based upon my experience as a clinical psychiatrist psychologist who is treating these paraphilic day in and day out that I believe that the sickness that they have forget about what the legal system caus it but the sickness that they have becomes so overwhelming that they will not be able to stop it by willpower alone aren't they to be given some Credence well I respect Dr Berlin's opinion on this but so far I believe he's been unable to convince any of the rest of us who have experience in criminal behavior and uh we await some showing of convincing evidence that that's the case well but you have been on the docket since 1985 of saying that no sexual disorder can ever be in and of itself a mental disease under the legal system correct sure and so is almost everyone else in my field Dr Berlin is the only person I've ever heard of suggesting that someone could be legally insane because of a paraphilia alone did until this case did you hear Dr Becker's testimony no I have never uh heard testify on any sanity issue did you hear Dr walstroms testimony no I didn't okay so what you're saying is if I heard you that you have to be convinced because right now nobody's been able to convince you that a person suffering from a paraphilia can't stop that behavior by willp power alone right I think my entire profession needs to be convinced everybody things change don't they doctor they do there was a century ago when people thought that some paraph files were insane and in this Century we've learned that that doesn't seem possible and now Dr Berlin wants to push the clock back but it's a it's a different view um the case is not Deets versus Berlin you're entitled to your opinion it's up to the jury to weigh correct it is for the jury to make a decision in we don't have any other p iatrist who you're quoting are coming into the courtroom after you so I have a t i have a chance to get out of them their reasons for feeling the way you do true I don't know what your plans are well but there's no other these other psychiatrists in the profession don't agree uh except Dr Berlin and you are in opposite polls I mean this right now is just my asking you your opinion correct I'm not asking you about what the opinion of of of the of these unknown at least unknown to me psychiatrist sir so I want to ask you this have you Chang your opinion at any time in the last 10 years reference any type of mental disorder by classifying it as something greater than it was at the time it was reviewed have you done that I don't quite understand let me ask didn't dsm3 take paraphilia out of sexual disorders and sexual deviations didn't they move it into a different category by itself I hadn't noticed we did I thought it was still in with sexual disorders was one time called sexual deviations oh all the paraphilia were at one time called sexual deviations are they now dsm3 now uses the term paraphilia why because a lot of people thought sexual deviations included homosexuality and Dr money who was on the DSM 3 committee wanted to reintroduce the term paraphilia um which vilhelm stakel had urged be used back in the 20s in turn of the century 25 years ago was there was there a mental disability known as Alzheimer's disease yes what would it call at that time yes 25 years ago I think most people would talk about it as scile dementia and lump a whole group of different conditions together there that's right and then through through study those in your field started recognizing that it's not just hardening of the arteries or old age it is a condition and it was called Alzheimer's so there was a change in that was there not it was a recognition that Alzheimer's was one cause of the syndrome that used to be lumped together and there was an increased knowledge what did they call anorexia 25 years ago 25 years ago I think probably most anorectics would have either been called models or uh hysterics sental disease anorexia nervosa yeah is it um again mental disease in isn't a medical term but certainly a mental disorder how severe life-threatening yeah is it as severe as schizophrenia in a different dimension schizophrenia is far more severe in what it does to mental processes um but less likely to pose an immediate threat to life so anorexia of course you're you you Folk with the more you've studied have come to understand more about it and you have been able to find ways of understanding it and treating it right people in my field have yes and Balia is the same it's life-threatening is it not yes was unheard of 25 years ago wasn't it no but it was certainly not a commonly known term and I think only people with very specialized knowledge had even heard of it I guess the reason is that 25 years from now let's hope we never have another new subcategory that there are 50 more Jeffrey ders that come down the pike we probably might learn more about the kind of disease or the kind of disorder he has correct I'm sure we'll continue to learn more about the paraphilia and also the necrophilia the necrophilia in particular okay now the um business of compulsion the cognitive and the volitional the cognitive goes to the appreciation of right from wrong the volitional goes to the ability to conform your conduct right yes is not compulsion an act of the will as opposed to the act of the intellect uh the medical concept of compulsion that I specifically delineated would deal with the will okay so therefore if I have a compulsion to do something and I say in order for me to do that that compuls that thing that I want so bad I have to do a b and c I have to get in my car I have to drive to the liquor store and I have to purchase the bottle because I want a drink or the anorexic young lady or Bic young lady same kind of example the planning of that is an intellectual exercise not a volitional exercise correct well you're not describing a medical compulsion now you're describing what would be described in ordinary language as a compulsion a compulsion to go drink and um yes it's true that the planning and activities that go into that are part of the intellectual exercise but I guess what I'm trying to say then is when you tell us about all the planning that he was doing that was part of his cognitive function was it not making plans in advance and thinking them through are uh evidence of cognitive functioning but in addition EXE cuting a plan taking steps deliberately delaying gratification and acting according to a timetable that suits one's interests May reflect great volitional control as well told us about riding around in squad cars with the LA Police Department going to these places on the west side of Hollywood and let's ass and I want to ask you about that a man wants to watch that or engage in it he desires it it is recurring thought processes to get involved in that it becomes something that he really wants to do and in a non-medical way it becomes a compulsion although he knows it's wrong he knows it's wrong he at least his more let's say his his moral cons says I shouldn't be doing this his going there and viewing it and paying the ticket and making sure that he isn't followed and making sure that his wife is out of town are all acts of his intellect true they all reflect his intellect his ability to delay doing this until his wife is out of town until he's alone at this place are an example of his capacity to conform his conduct if he couldn't conform his conduct he'd jump on the nearest attractive person my understanding then of what you say that unless you saw him doing everything Helter Skelter no spite strike that even if he did everything Helter Skelter by that I mean without any plan just doing it whenever today tomorrow yesterday no fixed way of doing it no plan no pre-plan and all he had medically or psychiatrically was a paraphilia either partialism trism or necrophilia he would still not be suffering from a mental disease as defined by to you by the district attorney and is redefined by me it would not be such an impairment of the mind that would affect his mental or emotional processes to such a degree that he would lack the substantial capacity to conform that kind to requirements of law true I don't mean to ask you to repeat that but the first part of the question was to assume that the paraphilia on you said partialism prism and eilia that's all he has and he does everything Helter Skelter would your opinion be different if that's all he has would your opinion as to whether or not he was suffering from a mental disease is defined five or six times now in the last day and a half would your opinion be any different than the one that you've delineated I don't think that um an individual would be doing everything Helter Skelter unless there were another mental disorder if you mean merely a disorganized and sloppy person now that obviously doesn't require mental disease but if you mean no planning at all um probably doesn't occur without some something being wrong minimal planning only night never at the same place hits people over the head with different objects uh different times of the night different places in town in and out does it and goes about his business that's the kind of Helter Skelter would that change your opinion if his mental condition was as you have told us uh if if that were the behavior I'd expect to find some abnormalities of the brain to account for his being that impulsive and and those could change my behavior abnormalities the brain of a physiological nature or a psychiatric nature both well are you suggesting that then if there was some abnormality of the brain that was discernable and Mr dmer and he did everything that he has done here that we know about that your opinion might be different than it is if there were some discernable abnormality of his brain but all of his behaviors were the same MH that wouldn't change my ultimate opinion because my opinions based based on his behaviors at the time of the crime including his statements about his mental state at the time of the crime and as long as he in fact had all of the evidence that I've described of appreciating that it was wrong and of being able to conform his conduct then my opinion would remain the same regardless of what other diagnoses there may be we've talked or you've told us about psychiatric term of compulsion what what the psychiatric term of obsession when you're obsessed with something what's the distinction between Obsession and compulsion an obsession has to do with an idea a cognition actually and an obsession must be an idea that is recognized by the individual as foreign and alien and unwelcome it has to be seen as intruding itself into the person's mind when they don't want it there as something that they would rather not have in their mind as something they regard as senseless to think about and it's something they want to get rid of as a thought Dr um you have taught at the FBI uh crime laboratory or the behavioral science laboratory I've taught at the FBI Academy and at a number of um FBI schools around the country um specifically my relationship there is with the national center for the analysis of violent crime at the FBI Academy and um you have uh been involved as a testifier in the case of US versus Hinkley yes you were hired by the government in case and testified on behalf of the government that's right one of the things that you said in that um in your Testament not one I think you said a lot of things but you talked about choices of Mr hinley is evidencing his lack of mental disorder such as he might wouldn't have shot the president if it was raining outside am I right did you say that that would have been a choice I would not do it if it was raining outside you use that kind of thing in that case correct I don't remember that particular example but if he said that to me I would have quoted him well I think I may be wrong but you also said you know that when you are in a position where you are making choices unless you are psychotic well I'll strike that because I'm trying to get to what you say there were there were psychiatrists that disagreed with you in that case were there not yes there were all right the other notable case was you were Consulting to the FBI in trying to uh uh that Tylenol murder cases in Chicago yes I I played a small part in that you're a consultant to the district attorney for the people versus Robert Chambers yes known as the preppy murder case the preppy murder case and and that and that you did you testify in that no I was on call to testify and just consulted sure you're consultant to the Office of the Attorney General of state of New York and grand jury investigation into the Miss toana aboy matter yes you're a consultant to the CIA in a in a case you this I'm reading off your dossier yes it was a lawsuit against them for alleged brainwashing activities in Canada some years ago but you're hired by the federal government correct you're consultant to the district attorney of Monroe County New York you know in a people versus sha cross case that's right do you testify in that case yes on behalf of on behalf of the state I trust that's right you're Consulting the Department of Justice in the case of US versus Moody correct you testified on behalf of Department of Justice that's right the only one I see at least the notable cases you put down where it would appear on the face that you weren't testifying on behalf of the government is the people versus BAU case of the ones I have listed there that's true um much of the time when I'm Consulting on behalf of the defense I'm not free to reveal that relationship and so couldn't list it in the CV were you able to give your opinion in the Bardo case yes now you have been in a position where you would advise the FBI their behavioral science unit as to the kind of person they might go out about looking for if a if in this crime scene analysis business from time to time that has been one of the questions that's been asked of me though uh I'm principally asked to consult on matters where the issue is somewhat different than which person committed the crime you in any way troubled by the fact that Jeffrey dmer was getting so I don't even know what word to use he was taking showers with two dead bodies in the bathtub that had had water and and some disinfectant and leaving that out so he could take a shower and then refilling up the bathtu that didn't uh what did what did that mean to you well I think it in requires an extraordinary degree of desensitization to be uh able to do that and not be troubled by it I think that it's likely that he was drinking very heavily at that time to be able to do that I think that's the most likely explanation for doing something that that weird let me get to this drinking business where where is the evidence that he other than his own words was this uh uh excessive Drinker did you did you get any information that when he was arrested that he was drunk the um police reports was he intoxicated when he was arrested May answer the first question sure either way yeah the evidence that Mr dmer is an excessive Drinker began um other than his own reports and his own reports have said he was an excessive Drinker since high school he said that every time he's been arrested for each of the offenses he's been arrested for he said it every time he's been in any trouble he said it repeatedly to those who've counseled him put him on his probation officer those who who have examined him all the clinicians involved in this case have been told by Mr dmer that he's an excessive drinker but in addition to that which reflects his statements largely Jeff 6 reported that Mr dmer would drink off in their senior year in school that they drank to get drunk and until their noses would get numb Jeff 6 Jeff s you're reading the police report that came from a police interview of Jeff 6 all right then in 1977 to 78 dmer and Jeff 6 really hung out together according to six they drank beer before football games and went late so as not to pay admission six said that dmer did drink a lot but people didn't see it because he drink by himself in bathrooms he'd be intoxicated but he wouldn't brag about it he kept his drinking low profile then a police report from September 17 1978 the Ohio State University Police recorded thefts of a watch a radio and cash from three roommates in room 541 of the Ross house on particular dates and um about 6 weeks later Mr dmer was reported by the police reports there as being a possible suspect in the thefts the reasons that the roommate suspected dmer was that he had a drinking problem which required money in October of 1978 the Ohio State University police records noted that Mr dmer lived in room 541 at Ross house and wrote quote Mr dmer has an alcohol problem he drinks between three and four quarts of liquor per day he has been responsible for many acts of Destruction then a roommate of Mr ders at Ohio State Michael basa what year are you talking about 1978 okay said that in the fall quarter of that year when they shared a bedroom uh his watch had been stolen his friend Mike's radio had been stolen dmer was suspected because he was the only one present during the theft he said that Mr dmer drank a lot and took liquor bottles and wined class that Mr dmer tape recorded lectures and returned to the room to listen to the tape while he got drunk he drank a couple of fifths a day um he slept in a top bunk and always had trouble getting into bed and Mr prasa thought that dmer was an alcoholic on one occasion Mr dmer damaged a bathroom tiled wall by kicking it which was witnessed by another roommate Dave Stillwell also um Mr patasa said that dmer often donated blood for money to buy alcohol and in fact that the three plasma banks on campus had begun to Mark Mr D's fingernails so that he could not donate more than once a week uh also he quoted Mr dmer as saying he had a letter written by a congressman that he used to be able to buy uh alcohol from liquor stores even though he was underage and finally according to this um witness during the last two weeks of the Fall quarter Mr dmer saved his liquor bottles and lined them up on his desk and there were as a result 32 liquor bottles there when his parents came to pick him up that 1978 that was 78 okay next is 1980 in the uh Army the Army records indicate that on May 10 1980 an Article 15 was filed because uh it was reported that Mr dmer having knowledge of a verbal lawful order issued by a ranking officer in Bolder Germany had wrongfully failed to obey the Same by having hard liquor in his billets and it was alleged also that he was drunken disorderly in his quarters as a consequence of that Article 15 he was reduced to the grade of e14 suspended for a Time forfeited $100 for two months and got 15 extra days of Duty in August of 1980 Mr dmer was according to military records counseled on an incident that occurred August 2nd when he was picked up by the military police for being under the influence of alcohol on December 8 of 1980 Mr dmer arrived for work 45 minutes late so intoxicated that he couldn't stand up according to military records on December 22 1980 Mr dmer was drunken disorderly during the previous weekend on December 22 of 1980 he arrived on duty heavily intoxicated on December 23rd 1980 he was celed because he failed to perform a duty that was assigned to him and was again intoxicated at the time he was celed on 3781 still from military records Mr dmer uh reported for formation in an improper uniform and was sent back to his room to get in proper uniform he didn't report back his area was in a shambles and he was found there intoxicated on March 9th of 81 Mr dmer was found to be drinking on duty in the army and as a result of that the commander revoked his access to classified material and discharged him from the army with an honorable discharge in 1981 October 1981 records from the Bath Township Ohio Police Department indicate that Mr dmer was arrested at 8:36 in the evening for disorderly conduct in an incident in which he was intoxicated drinking from an open container of vodka and making a scene at the Rada in hotel which asked him to leave he refused when the police arrived he um was resistant with the police and they um patted him down and handcuffed him told him to get in the patrol car and then there was a verbal and perhaps physical altercation between Mr dmer and the police officers during the course of which he was injured and that was written as is having fallen out of a chair um because he was intoxicated in the um period from the time Mr dmer came to Milwaukee until the time of his arrest he had on these charges he was uh working primarily at two jobs for which I have records the plasma center and the Chocolate Factory in both of those capacities he was eventually terminated for excessive absenteeism and tardiness and although uh alcoholism is not the only cause of excessive absenteeism and tardiness industrial uh Consultants have for many years now used absenteeism and tardiness as one of the best indicators of the rates of alcoholism in the labor force and it's um um likely because of that correlation that Mr Dahmer's excessive absenteeism and chariness at the times he wasn't committing crimes may be related to his excessive drinking um the dates of his absences at work do not always correspond to the killings and so there are other occasions when alcoholism may play a role of course Dr Rosen who treated him or attempted to diagnosed him as an alcoholic uh the court that sentenced Mr dmer in January of 1989 mandated inpatient or outpatient alcoholism treatment for him there was an incident that would be difficult to otherwise explain around Thanksgiving of 1989 when Mr dmer was on a work release uh was on a pass for Thanksgiving Day from the House of Corrections when he uh returned from the House of Corrections obviously intoxicated and was written up for an infraction for that and there several accounts of of what happened there um but only his story describes what happened while he was gone which is that he was uh drinking very heavily became intoxicated and during an alcoholic black out submitted uh himself to be bound by another man and uh regained memory at a time when he was restrained and being sexually tortured by the man uh but he returned intoxicated in May of 1990 Mr dmer entered treatment for alcoholism at depal Hospital's outpatient program and in the course of that there was reported a family history of alcoholism in his maternal grandfather though that information probably came from him both at the time of his intake at depal and at the time of discharge in December 1990 when he stopped going to the outpatient sessions he was given a principal diagnosis of of alcohol dependence so I think that although the latter part of that depends in part on this Mr dmer statements the evidence is persuasive enough to me to make the diagnosis of his having an alcohol problem that I called alcohol dependency now you not only call it alcohol dependency would you call it mild or moderate that's right well that would seem to imply that it wasn't uh so severe that uh well let me ask this way someone who has mild or moderate alcohol dependent should they be uh should they go into for treatment mild or Moder well from the standpoint of what would be best for the individual uh everyone with alcohol dependence would be better off without it and some kind of treatment would be useful to them well let me let me see if I can't because I'm almost finished no one at work ever reported on being drunk on on the job Jack correct that's right the cops that were there on the SS incident when they arrested him at work they didn't find him in a state of intoxication did they they went to work I mean I'm not trying to mislead you they went to work but they didn't find that he had been intoxicated did they I don't recall the police reports at the time of his arrests how about mentioning that he was intoxicated for any of the crimes how about how about the Knight Tracy Edwards escaped was he intoxicated according to the police I didn't see anything uh mentioned about intoxication in the police report how about the police that took the confession from him when he started confessing they didn't find any him being in a state of intoxication did they I didn't see an indication in the police reports of that uh how about the officers that were with him on the conr uh the con Conor sitman own situation they didn't they reported he had been drinking they didn't say he was intoxicated did they that's right how about the people in the apartment building did they see this man walking around impaired from alcohol no a person uh with a mild or moderate alcohol dependence uh don't necessarily drink every day do they no they do not and do they always when they drink drink themselves into a state of intoxication no um just few things in in in closing I believe doors because I I sit down that's it um I want to ask you about your agreement with the District Attorney's office um you are unable to get here to prepare whatever you had to do by the 7th you needed a few extra days is that right um my recollection is that I expressed to Mr mccan The View that I would welcome extra days okay I I think it was possible to do it if I had to but it was going to require more than one allnighter and I'd rather avoid it first day you were here was what day I think it was January 6th 6 all right now in that regard um you spent a total of 3 days 18 hours total time with I think it was about 18 hours yes over three days um what was your uh agreement ment relative to compensation I was uh told that I would be paid by uh the county at my customary fees for government work which is a a lower fee than for private work which is lower than private lower than private yes up to a um limit of what eventually became a limit of 13 days that would be approved for compensation well give us a number what's your rate my rate is $3,000 a day 3,000 a day that's correct and how much is that an hour $300 an hour so you have how many days in what's your total bill up to now as you sit here well my bill is going to be all of that because the budget ran out before I came here to testify the budget was what how much the total amount that I'd be authorized to bill for fuse would be $39,000 and you are going to charge more than $39,000 no I'm not I'm um doing my testimony without compensation because the I agreed to uh do the case for a fixed amount and and the fixed amount now is $39,000 yes so that's what you're going to be paid $ 39,000 I expect so yes I just want to check with our people thank you d Dr you've been questioned on cross-examination as to whether per as paraphilia alone could it constitute such a disease or disorder as to relieve a person of criminal responsibility and you've talked about that and basically your position is that it could not is that correct paraphilia alone having a paraphilia alone whether one calls a disease or a disorder would not be such as to constitute cause for relieving a person of criminal responsibility that's correct a paraphilia alone except when one concocts the most unusual sorts of examples someone because of a paraphilia might be engaging in an activity which they wouldn't be engaging in otherwise and coincidentally during that do something unlawful and unrelated to the paraphilia uh there might be some way to fancifully construct a scenario but for all practical purposes I I can't imagine um a paraphilia alone serving as a basis for lacking criminal responsibility for a crime related to sexual activity and that is in fact consistent with the great body of psychiatric thinking for psychiatric thinking is that not true that is true and the only person you know of the only forensic psychiatrist that takes a different position is Dr Fred Berlin is that correct the only person I was aware of who had experience evaluating criminal defendants uh and considering any issue of Sanity who had ever taken that position to my knowledge was Dr Berlin at least in the last 30 years and did you know that this was the first time he ever Advanced that theory in a in a murder case I've heard that yes and that doct Becker who is a psychologist Advanced the same Theory she has never testified before in any case of any type were you aware that she had that same perception as Dr Berlin I've been told that yes so they're thinking at least as far may I ask this can you think of in the cases you reviewed your work as a forensic psychiatrist can you think of any other murder case where the the issue Advanced as a defense was a only a paraphilia or several paraphilias when the issue was criminal responsibility no with respect to the mental disease issue I read to you in the jury heard it yesterday afternoon I put this same question 15 times and basically it read this way would you share with the jury your findings with respect to whether Mr dmer possessed substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he killed James docor was the first thing you listed issues bearing on cognition and you issue listed issues bearing on conforming and then I asked you and what did you conclude and you responded for the first 13 there was no discussion by you or by me of mental disease was there I believe there was not I I didn't put it in my question and you didn't put it in your answer let me ask this considering you based your opinions is it not clear on your examinations your extensive 18-hour examinations of the defendant Mr dmer the voluminous records that you obviously have very carefully gone over those were the bases for your opinion is that correct my opinions are based on everything I know and whether does it alter it at all does your opinion change at all we'll speak about the last two Cals later does your opinion change at all about what you said on mental responsibility legal responsibility does it change at all whether or not we call the paraphilia a mental disease or we say it's not a mental disease does that change your opinion at all it doesn't change my opinion on whether he appreciated the wrongful of his conduct or whether he could conform his conduct because my opinion on those issues isn't based on a consideration of diagnosis or what may be wrong with them but rather on evidence concerning the behavior at the time of the crimes in so far as it can be read from the kinds of evidence I've been relying on including Mr dmer statements with respect to the last two counts because the alcohol situation had changed slightly or changed some you pointed that out but just to make it clear to the jury with respect to the last two counts keeping in mind the observations you made the records you reviewed and so on do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not Mr dmer at the time of the commission of the deaths of Oliver Lacy and Joseph brof had the capacity to sub had the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law I do and what is that opinion that he did now with respect to to the issue of Mr Edwards Tracy Edwards you were provided as part of the material sent from my office you were provided a police report with respect to the statement of Tracy Edwards on the morning that Mr made the morning that Mr dmer was erected is that correct yes you've looked at a lot of police reports in your career have you not I mean many hundreds Maybe maybe thousands is that true yes it is would would it be safe to say that that was a six page typed double spaced interview report of Mr Edwards yes did it look to you like a sloppy quick rushed job as an interview of Mr Edwards not at all did that interview contain any statement about dmer rocking and chanting the morning in the experience that Mr Edwards had with him no it didn't and you've come in your experience when people appear on the Heraldo show and on the Donahue show you've come to have a more reserved perception of their reliability after that would that be accurate depending on on um what the topic is and what's happened there I've come to think that it can alter one's Recollections and how one tells a story in terms of the increase in the number of homicides over a particular period of time uh in your review of Seri IAL killings is that rather typical that as a serial killer develops the skill desensitizes himself sets up the right situation that the number of Serial killings tends to rise over a given framework of time yes and is that consistent with your observations of Mr dmer yes it is and in terms of does that can one conclude looking at that fact alone can one conclude that the individual must be San insane from looking at that issue no one can conclude that the individual must be a serial killer and the fact that a person can continue to get away with it and use cunning to do it and planning to do it is all consistent with ter in terms of responsibility for it would that be accurate yes it is you've testified that the paraphilia that the paraphilia of the defendant did not include killing is that correct that's right and we've talked about and that in fact every doctor has been consistent in saying that he did not draw pleasure in that killing is that correct as far as you know as far as I know it is was the defendant the sexual desire for the of the defendant had that sexual desire was not for killing was it correct it was not and the information that you have available to you was that that that indeed he even after turning away after the toomi incident where he seemed to embrace what he was doing that even when he undertook to kill he would still feel some inhibitions is that correct I think we've got a little too far in the leading problem so I'm going that even after the TWY incident when he decided that he would he made certain decisions we talked about is that correct yes and even after that he still felt inhibitions at the time he undertook to commit the murders is that correct at least in some of the cases he said that yes he said he needed to overcome the inhibitions with alcohol with respect to the delusions alleged delusions particularly bearing waiting with the the skulls and so on are you aware that both Dr Becker and Dr Berlin considered that in terms of whether or not he was psychotic or whether it was delusional and determined that he was not psychotic and this was not delusional thinking are you aware of that yes I am that apparently only one psychiatrist Dr walstrom took that position are you aware of that yes are you aware that neither of the court appointed experts took the position that he was delusional that's my understanding are you aware that Dr Fel did not take the position who also discussed the temple that that indicated delusional thinking I am aware of that with respect to the uh the undertaking of work with the uh the zombie the the frontal lobe operation to be safe to say that that was a vicious thing to do well I think now we getting a little far feel objetive being leading I'll stipulate it was vicious in terms did you from your discussions with the defendant perform any perception of what value he put on human life I don't think I have any basis for an expert opinion on that I think the facts speak for themselves in other words what he did speaks louder than anything he would have said is that cor you have to so you just cite the fine with respect to Conor synthes phone are you aware that I don't know if you are or not that the police officer Balter act testified that he turned to the crowd he said that the described the location of the people and said out to the crowd does anyone know this man in speaking of Conor athm phone and that no one answered that they knew him or not I'm going to object to the form of that question oh I'm asking if he was aware of that testimony or aware of that information are you aware of that sir yes I think I alluded to it in my own testimony are you aware that that at that time the defendant was was present and would have been able to observe that no one responded that they knew who the man was were you aware of that yes so that when he returned to his dwelling he knew that no one had recognized him apparently and that the only name the police had was John hamong do you think that may have influenced what he did with respect to Mr camone that information Cel is leading is way out of line I'm object sustained you aware that he had that information at the time that he returned to the apartment yes you've indicated that the sexual urges that he had were the same the object was different but were of the same level that other normal people have is that correct the object was different but the U the quality of those urges is no different in the paraphilia than it is in normal individuals who may vary in the intensity of their urges and the frequency of their urges in terms of the lp incident that you've indicated that you believe as I recollect you believe that flowers would have been slain had the grandmother not been there you what was your opinion with respect to the lp incident did you form an opinion on that whether the defendant would have proceeded to slay him or not if you did form an opinion um I'm sorry I'm glad you did the lp incident I'm sorry council did not touch I believe well on you did on the lp in did not touch on the Sam saac synthes some phone incident did not I did I will not touch right I will not touch on it again in terms of the the word compulsion that comes up again you have repeatedly said correct me if I'm wrong that that is a sexual urge that is being discussed when the defendant uses that term compulsion would that be accurate uh every time Mr dmer used the word compulsion in police reports or the things quoted in police reports or the psychiatric exams I believe he was referring to his sexual urges I don't think he ever used that term to refer to his desire to drink or to anything else and I don't think he has ever had any of the behaviors that medically would be considered a compulsion so he's not had medically what would be considered a compulsion and in the in the terms of the desires you know from the paraphilia those desires would be sexual desires would that be accurate yes are you familiar with some of the writings of Samar HCK psychiatrist yes I am and he is a for respected forensic psychiatrist is that correct um Dr Alex respected in Psychiatry and law generally and as a general psychiatrist I have not put this question to you before but are you aware whether he's written any warnings to clinicians that are working as clinicians in the field to be on the alert to being overly sympathetic to the patients that they treat or patients with whom they work I know that he has so warranted in terms of alcohol a person that is planning to get a drink is is killing a man to get a drink a part of alcoholism in terms of let me withdraw the question uh is there a difference between an alcoholic thinking about getting a drink and an alcohol planning to kill a man of course and this defendant's paraphilia does not have to do with killing people is that accurate that is accurate thank you doctor no I just one additional question just so the jury understands when you say you've exhausted the budget you are you have put in more hours and you're not getting paid for it is that correct that's true and and due to professional commitment despite that you continue to prepare for this case and to appear here is that true yes knowing you wouldn't be compensated for the extra work right thank you I have no point you may step down doctor thank you your honor any further Witnesses for this need Mr Bo any rebuttal testimony no rebuttal testimony I have a statement for the record outside presence in the jury in appropriate time okay make sure that all our exhibits are I want to reserve that too we can do that okay jury is excused be SE please H I have a state make for the record think I need that door closed um I have um always keeping in mind that matters are reviewed and people ask questions as to the why did you do this and the why didn't you do that I think it's necessary for me to tell the court and at some juncture while I Was preparing this case um I um thought very hard and long about calling Mr dmer to the witness St I talked to him about it on a number of occasions it was going to be his decision not mine my experience as a lawyer in these kinds of cases is I don't ever remember anyone ever calling a defendant in the second phase I remember I tried a man who killed a Milwaukee policeman vvin pman and and but he that was on the first F at that time it wasn't non bipoc and that the issue then was the same then I mean you got into the Insanity part in in the only phase before the jury um that the question of calling Mr dmer or not calling Mr dmer was a very very serious problem because on the one hand I wanted to on the other hand I thought that Mr McCain's cross-examination of Mr dmer would uh be most detrimental to Mr dmer for a number of reasons and I uh I made some pentative decisions talking to my doctors they they uh uh one of them incidentally said you know maybe uh you might consider doing that and I said I've been thinking about it Mr dmer was never anxious to talk never anxious to testify but he indicated to me that he would if I asked him to and thought it was necessary uh but he was kind of hoping that it wouldn't he wouldn't have to it was decided that he would not uh that was his decision to make and it was only his decision to make I might indicate to the court that in the course of my making that decision I as part of my work product uh which is completely covered by Mr D's privilege did a videotape about 33 minutes talking about things other than the case talking about uh you know Sports and activities of that nature and I'm of the opinion that and I had his permission to use that to find out whether or not uh the perception would be positive or negative uh how he might be seen and uh I did that because I really thought that this was probably the most important decision I'd have to make in the case and um I've told Mr dmer and I've said it on on the tape itself that it it remains with me and no one else unless otherwise Changed by Mr dmer in the future um I had his permission and that likewise is on that tape which I have in my possession to have a couple of uh to use my own discretion on on the viewing of it to help me make what I considered to be a problematical decision when all is said and done your honor um Mr decided that he did not want to testify uh I still had that Avenue open even in rebuttal if I chose to to suggest to Mr dber that he change his opinion and exercise and I think it very necessary for me to put this on the record so that uh someone someday uh might say that Mr dmer could have helped himself by testifying or so often today us lawyers are so concerned about second guessers that we have to uh somehow or another cover ourselves to make sure we're doing the right thing I'm certainly not doing it for that reason I could care less about that I I'm confident in my decision but I think I owe it to this court and to this record to make the statement I've just made and I would ask you to make inquiry of Mr dmer whether or not he agrees with everything that I've said Mr dmer do you agree with what your attorney has just pulled a court yes I agree with that your honor I think we only have to move in exhibits and figure out where we go from here Court expects that we do have to complete that business on the Motions I think we pretty much agreed virtually nothing will go to the jury but I do wish to make a motion I'm not going to tie up the court at length I don't know whether the court wishes me to make it now or make it tomorrow morning it will be brief uh the court knows what it is probably knows how you're going to rule on it but it is something that I do wish to make just to preserve the record do you wish me to make it now or do you go ahead all right if it please the the court assuming that all the record the exhibits have been filed I would ask the court to Grant judgment in favor of the state on the basis that by that the defense has wholly failed to move forward with its burden of proof by the greater weight through reasonable C reasonable certainty by the greater weight of credible evidence that it could not as a matter of law the ruling the jury verdict could not come back in that fashion as a matter of law uh that that this is clearly a a creative and Innovative and unique type of Defense uh and I would urge the court because at the hour is late and I anticipate what the Court ruling will be uh I would move for judgment to directed verdict a nonsuit uh of the defendant in this case and if the court is not inclined to rule on it at this time at least to take it to reserve judgment on it until such time as a a verdict may be returned by the jury I'm going to uh take the motion under advisement and I'll entertain argument if it becomes necessary I can't even speak about the fact that it's Innovative you see one of the problems is I I'm being accused of of of innovative defenses I have doctors telling me what it is and I must follow that I don't have choices I think we've case law that indicates it's an appropriate motion I I don't think it's Innovative whether or not the court is about to the Court's not about to Grant it obviously yes I just so Court knows this is not and no disparagement Mark toyle that is to his credit not to but I would judge one final thing I move uh for directed verdict rules motion taken under advis uh now what I would like to do is uh first of all we have a matter of verdicts and instructions to work out see where am I would like to read to you what we've uh what we're proposing as a special verdict and it would be the same verdict for each of the counts the only language that would change would be the reference to the uh the the count question one would read at the time the crime was committed in count one of the information did the defendant Jeffrey L dmer have a mental disease there' be a place for an answer asking for a yes or no question two if you've answered question number one yes then answer this question as a result of the mental disease as to count one in the information did the defendant lack substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law uh and again a a place for an answer there would be provision for descending jurors to indicate who they are insert the name of each respect in each respective count the name of the victim we could do that I have a serious problem with a jury uh considering that in that form because I think you should separate the wrongfulness of his conduct and have a separate yes or no to conforming conduct to the requirements of Law and I would ask that that be done because in this case it is unique that we have never ever supported that and I will tell the jury that but the fact that they're together might cause a problem with how to answer that question because an affirmative answer or a negative answer would seem to apply to both so I would ask the court to exercise this discretion and and and separate them I think it got to separate them because I think they they could still say well I think there's enough to say he didn't know the difference being right or wrong in spite of the fact we'll tell them that we're not even on that but I think you have to do that J otherwise we got a confusing verdict that's the way the questions are framed are exactly the way they're set forth in the instructions I understand it that's because that's always an issue I mean it I don't know maybe the court knows better than I where a lawyer got up and said we given in on that prong don't consider it but if they were to answer it yes they would also be answering yes to that prong no they would be saying that that's what I look at that's not the question that's presented to them then let me hear the question again if you've answered question number one yes then answer this question as a result of the mental disease as count one in the information did the defendant lack substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law if either one is yes then yes is the answer and certainly uh you have the ability to explain that in your arguments I still would rather have them split but since I you ruled I'll know how to Court's going to follow the uh the the instruction as they're set forth in form instruction okay [Music] uh as to the instructions I'm going to tell you what I have here and Mr Bole first and then Mr mccan can make any suggestions that you have as to additions or deletions I have from the standard criminal instructions number 100 I then will read each count in the information at the conclusion of that I will make the statement that the defendant Jeffrey dmer has been found guilty of every count in the information next I have standard criminal instruction 605 I made a couple of changes in terms of singular to plural because this is this is multiple counts but I have stricken the last paragraph from 65 and inserted civil instruction 180 which is the Civil instruction regard regarding a 56 verdict you mean the last paragraph that being just that last sentence that's right it's a one- sentence paragraph okay thank you I I felt it was better to give the more comprehens of instruction which is readily available in in our civil instructions uh I've got 145 here information not evidence I I I don't know that it's particularly meaningful here but uh if nobody wants it I won't give it I think instructions are better if they're shorter rather than longer does anybody want that 14 you're you're going to read all of the you're gonna read the okay no you don't have to put that 147 uh improper questions 150 stricken testimony 157 remarks of council 160 arguments of council 190 weight of evidence 195 jurors knowledge 640 which is the uh special instruction on Expert Witnesses in this in this type of a situation and that includes uh some of the other materials that were asked for in terms of expert witness uh uh testimony uh oh I have civil instruction 265 which is the expert witness hypothetical question the substance of the instruction is the same as the criminal I just like the wording a little bit better in out of the Civil so that's why I selected that then 2011 has been requested opinion of non-expert witnesses I assume what we're talking about is the several witnesses who were called to describe their contact uh contacts with Mr dmer let me tell you how I've worded it in here I've filled in a few blanks uh there are ex uh first you have the general rule is that Witnesses May testify only the facts known to them there are exceptions to this Rule and in this case several witnesses were allowed to give their opinion as to Jeffrey D's mental condition at the time they had contact with him now that's what I filled in and then I pick up with the standard instruction 215 objections of council and evidence received over objection 300 credibility of witnesses uh one I think this is civil instruction 190 which is the closing one uh civil 190 I here let me let me read it so there's no doubt in your mind what I'm talking about um now members of the jury this case is ready uh to be submitted to you for your serious deliberation you will consider the case fairly honestly and partially and the of reason and Common Sense give each each question in the verdict your careful and conscientious consideration in answering each question free your minds from all feelings of sympathy bias or Prejudice let your verdict speak the truth whatever the truth may be when you retire to the Jury Room your first Duty will be to elect a juror who will preside over your deliberations and write in the answers you have agreed upon uh the vote of the presiding juror however is entitled to No Greater weight than the vote of any other juror when your deliberations are concluded and your an answers inserted in the verdicts uh the presiding juror will sign and date the verdicts and all of you will turn with the verdict into court and the bays are then sworn that's uh and the reason I picked that is because this deals with a special verdict rather than the general verdict that we typically have in a criminal case your honor um how I suppos I'm sorry okay if we talking that's what I have if you fully understand what I have here then let's go to Mr Bole and uh um I'll withdraw my uh request uh if you have my list up there I have your list here somewhere yeah I'll put it on a record I I withdraw the request for 101 no taking permitted 103 evidence toine 155 exhibits 162 degreed facts 165 judicially notice fact X I'm sorry 170 circumstantial evidence 180 commission confessions admissions uh my 2 and 2011a I don't know what you want to do with that judge because we giving them in another form those are wrapped into I'll I'll withdraw I'll withdraw my 205 expert testimony hypothetical question I'll withdraw my 275 I'll withdraw 2751 I will with draw 315 that's defendant elects not to testify uh I will withdraw 3177 you've got your 460 in there and 525 I'll withdraw and uh I would like to read to you uh the special jury instruction that I have provided your clerk with and I'd like to make my record now I'll be brief argue this before read you have a number of Alternatives in regards to the verdict you may return in this case you may find it the defendant was sanee when he committed each and every offense you may find that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of each and every offense or you may find that defendant was insane at the time of the commission of some of the offenses and not others that is your entitlement if you find it the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of one any one offense he will be found not responsible for that offense but will be committed to the Department of Health and Social Services and will be placed in an appropriate institution until the court determines that the fendant would not pose a danger to himself or to others If released under conditions ordered by the court you find a defendant was saying at the time of the commission of anyone offense he would be sentenced as provided by law which is mandatory life imprisonment on each and every count where you make such a finding case of a mixed verdict saying on one or more and not responsible on one or more defendant would first be confined in the State Mental Hospital and when released from there he would be taken to the state prison to serve out the mandatory life sentence however in deciding whether the defendant is responsible for the criminal conduct you are to consider only the issue of defendant's mental condition and at the time of the offense was committed you are given this instruction so as to make you aware of the effect of your decision but you are DET you are determined the question presented to you upon the instructions already given to you I would ask the court to either give that or take it under advisement I realize that the that the instruction says is provided by law but the case law says a jury should know what the effect of their decision is and the reality of it is as provided by law says nothing it's a non thing and we do know that there is no discretion on what Mr dmer will have to do if he is found to be guilty and sane he will be serve he will be caused to be served as a mandatory life imprisonment and I think the jury should be entitled to know that and I say that because one of the things that I was hopefully trying to accomplish in this case was at the very least to have Mr dmer uh committed to the state institution till such time as he was uh he had complied with what the law required and then to go and serve out his sentence in hopes that there would be some U some study to help him get over what his obvious problem has been and secondly to give uh uh people a chance to uh uh do some research so I'd ask the court give that and I think the jury is entitled to know that now if Court says you can't give it then I'm going to ask leave of the court tomorrow morning to suggest how I may be able to very carefully comply what the Court's answer but to let the jury know that they can use their common sense in what is provided by law means and not be foreclosed by telling them what the instruction uh says thank you that's right briefly on that first of all state would object to that instruction um it phrases the issues in terms of sane and insane this is a responsibility hearing it also unfortunately focuses on disposition for the jury rather than the finding of responsibility which they need to make and by I believe the instructions the court has already given are the standard instruction that do advise the jury that a finding of Not Guilty by reason of mental disease or defect would commit him on that count to the appropriate the supervision of the appropriate Department I think that is what they are required to know and over focusing on where he will be turns this from a responsibility case into a disposition case and essentially has the jury picking where they would most like him to be housed without having any expert knowledge on the facilities available and what is most appropriate they haven't heard testimony on that beyond that the state's only argument would be that we believe that the two jury instructions 103 evidence defined and I believe it's 105 agreed facts would be be appropriate since there were a number of stipulations in this case those are both brief and I think one the other or I've already given them agreed facts but I did that during the course of trial if you recall uh and evidence defined evidence defined just says that it's Al it's three different things one of which is stipulations of the parties let's see I'm not sure if that was done at the see in a normal criminal trial I do that at the beginning and I'm not and now my problem is recalling what I did at the beginning I don't know we can put that in and if you really want agreed facts to be given to him again sure I could I could give I think if evidence defined is given since it covers stipulations that that's okay that that's what 103 is it yes okay that's oh let me okay the only open question we have now is the matter of Mr Bo's request for the for his special instruction is that that correct uh the final the final part of the uh the standard instruction says this if you answer both of these questions yes the defendant will be found to be not responsible for the offense and he will be committed to the Department of Health and Social Services and will be placed in an appropriate institution unless the court determines that the defendant would not pose a danger to himself or others If released under conditions ordered by the court in deciding whether the defendant is responsible for the criminal conduct you are to consider only the issue of the defendant's mental condition at the time the offense was committed now this language was adopted by the instructions Committee in in response to the case law that uh that Mr Bole refers to uh at the beginning of the trial we reviewed that case law and contained within that case law is the acknowledgement that telling juries what the effect of their decision is is not the general rule this is a special rule carved out of that and for that reason I think it's important that we very we limit that and I think the proper interpretation of the case law is that we do what this instruction does and that we we tell them what happens in regard to their verdict in this case but not go on to tell them what happens generally in terms of the uh the criminal disposition of the case uh so I I'm relying on my colleagues that serve on the criminal instruction committee and because I believe they've considered this uh in fact I'm sure they have uh and I find what they have come up with to be extremely persuasive although I'm well aware that it's not controlling Mr fo and that's that that in any event is the Court's position you've indicated that uh you are going to spend the evening to come up with uh with another suggestion as to how you might handle it we'll deal with that in the morning of course now how kind are you going to be about what time we starting up in the morning well first of all I have to ask you gentlemen a question how how kind are you going to be to the patients of the uh of the court and jurors in terms of the length of your um uh uh closing statements I think that we I I think we have to have limits uh I I want to listen to you as to what those limits should be because I I I limit limits are designed to to be fair and not to try to impose undo hardship on on either attorney but I have to have some I think I have to some some guidance uh you're going to start out Mr Bo what what do you I you know judge over the years I'm telling you I every time I talk even in the long ones I always look up and it's always about 55 minutes uh but I think I should say an hour and a half yeah I don't know about rebuttal what here my I have a suggestion in mind which is consistent with I think what youve just said and that is that each of you be allocated two hours you have the right to divide your time as you choose fit that's good for me that Mr MCC that's good the court if I ask for it I can roll for two hours but if I ask for a three minute break or something I'm sure the court would give that to me just and I want maybe the jury might need it too no if you would like a break within your argument please tell me because I'm trying to be polite and not interrupt you so that uh if if you want a break you're going to have to ask for it well if we take a break we got to take a break after mine anyway take a break and he goes if he needs a break within the break that's fine I don't have a problem that and then I'm going to try and get it on back I won't need a break after he talks out I get over okay what time you want to start tomorrow morning then now that we've worked that one out about 9:30 J it's 9:30 10:30 11:00 go no that's not what time 8:30 you make it 9: we make it 9:00 why don't we make it 9:00 we could thank you we see you tomorrow morning parts and recess yes