Download Subtitles for Jeffrey Dahmer Prosecution Closing Argument

[Music]

please seated

please jurors we're now going to hear

from Mr mcken and I think I should Ln

alert you ahead of time because we look

at the clock and we see it's about

quarter after 11: Mr McAn is going to

argue till 12: or 12:15 or so and then

he's uh going to take a break and what

we're going to do is we'll break for

lunch at that time so you'll have lunch

at a fairly normal time uh and then

after lunch Mr mccan will finish his

argument Mr

mccan thank you ladies and gentlemen of

the jury it's been three weeks and it's

been like a long time I know for you and

it's been for us as well I felt

particularly bad last Saturday Dr fosle

was on all day it was the sixth day of

the week and I know it was difficult for

you was as it was difficult for Mr Bole

and I and and the judge and so forth yet

I was intense on your seeing how

thorough Dr Fel was and if I pushed your

patience I'm sorry that I did but I

think when you sit down to decide this

case you will appreciate that we put on

that we were as thorough as we were but

I do apologize particularly for that day

because I was weary you were weary but

you kept at it you kept with it and I

deeply appreciate that I am advocate for

the people of the state of Wisconsin

I've been that way that in that role for

a long time I'm very proud and very

happy to be doing it I'm officer an

officer of this court and I've been very

pleased with this trial with your

particularly with your continuing

attention i' I'd like to go back to when

we first met each other and that's what

we call the Vader examination a little

bit was out here in court but a great

deal of it was in Chambers and I asked

each of you a number of questions and

I'm going to remind you of some of those

questions first we started out by saying

the burden of proof truth in this case

is on the defendant that's unusual in

the system of justice but what we say in

the state of Wisconsin is Jeffrey dmer

has killed 15 people he sits here a

killer in this courtroom convicted of

being a killer he now asks you not to

hold him responsible for those killings

this is a responsibility hearing he is

saying don't hold me criminally

responsible for those killings and the

state very properly says you're going to

have to prove that then Mr dmer and you

said you'd go with that that you

wouldn't even

psychologically put that burden and I

know there's an instinctive well the da

didn't prove this or that please if

anybody says in ch in your jury Chambers

well the da didn't prove this stop them

say no no no no the district attorney

doesn't have to prove anything and

that's a switch of Gears that it may be

hard to do because psychologically we

all been watching films and so on we

expect the district to turn to prove

something I think we did prove it we

brought on a case as though it were Our

obligation we presented the best

psychiatrists the most capable people

evidence from lay Witnesses from doctors

from the facts of the case we proved

sanity but we didn't have to prove

anything the burden is entirely on the

defendant who seeks to escape

responsibility for the slayings with

which he has already been found to have

committed to which he fled

guilty

please during your de deliberations you

said you would abide by that in the

Vader examination when you were first

questioned you said you would abide by

that please I didn't have to put

anything on after Dr poo and Dr fredman

the court experts stop stop testifying I

could have rested the case and you'd

have to wrestle with it with that

evidence I could have done that but I

didn't I pressed forward please keep in

mind the burden is on the defendant to a

reasonable able

certainty reasonable certainty by the

greater we of the credible evidence if

you are not So Satisfied of that you are

to answer the Court's question no are

you satisfied to a reasonable certainty

by the greater weight I don't have to

prove anything if you get back in that

jury room and you say you know I don't

know I can't tell which is it I don't

know then you're not satisfied to a

reasonable certainty and you have to

answer you're not satisfied to a

reasonable

surer I know I hear that argument the

reverse as a district attorney defense

attorney will get up in the typical case

when the burden is ours and they'll

argue that he didn't prove it Beyond A

Reasonable Doubt and sometimes they'll

say look it I don't have to prove he's

innocent the defense attorney will say

this in the typical trial I don't have

to prove he's innocent not guilty

doesn't mean innocent not guilty means

the da didn't prove it that's what in

the typical case in this case not

satisfied to a reasonable

certainty simply says that doesn't say

that you're finding him sane it just

simply says the defense didn't prove

that the defendant by a reasonable

certainty did not prove that the

defendant was not responsible it's an

important concept that finding doesn't

say he's sane it says he hasn't proven

that he's insane to a reasonable

certainty so don't say we have to find

him sayane you don't you assess what the

defens proof is and if you're not

satisfied to a reasonable certainty that

he's insane then the answer is no you're

not going in there to say we got to

agree that he's sane that's not

it the issue is did he satisfy you to a

reasonable certainty that he was insane

if he didn't then the answer is

no at the same time I think we proved it

that we proved sanity anyways and I'll

talk about that further as I go along

but that is a profoundly important

distinction and I I you you took you

said you to abide by it and I ask you to

continue to abide by it it isn't is he

sane or insane it's did he prove to a

reasonable certainty that he was insane

if he didn't the answer is no you don't

have to make a finding that he was sane

you're not being asked to make a finding

that he was sane you're being asked to

make a finding did he prove to a

reasonable certainty that he was insane

that's the issue before

you

okay we had talked about a number of

things number one with the mere fact

that a person is is um does a an

unnatural act mean that he have a mental

disease you agreed that you wouldn't

find that way does the mere is the

Court's going to instruct you on this

this isn't words that I put together

does the mere fact that the enormity of

what he's done does the enormity of what

he's done mean that that that that alone

he must be insane because we talked

about it in the blood here some people

as Dr pmo said by the way candidly I

thought he must be crazy from what he

did the enormity of this or the

unnaturalness of this as the court will

instruct you is not grounds for saying

he's mentally diseased and the court

will instruct you on

that because otherwise well then he must

be if he got away with 10 more hey but

if he got stopped after one then what it

isn't that it isn't how successful you

are how many you can get away with that

somehow if he got 35 or 40 then he must

be even uh more out of it not at all

it's not the enormity of the ACT or the

unnaturalness of the

ACT that's also we discussed it well

here we talked about alcohol and I asked

you if you'd abide by the instructions

of the court and there are Specific

Instructions about the role of alcohol

in an insan in the insanity instruction

that the judge will give you I ask you

you said you would abide by that and I

ask you to listen carefully when the

judge gives it I also talk that under

certain circumstances and the judge will

advise you as to what weight should be

given if lay Witnesses

testify if lay Witnesses testify and we

had put on lay witnesses that talked

about his mental status curious question

he has lived here 10 years in this

community this defendant and not one lay

witness came into court to say yeah he's

goofy or he's crazy this not one lay

witness but we bought brought in people

that did that had had contact with him

why didn't Jeffrey dmer defense put on

someone to say I've known him he lived

at the Grandma's house

from December of ' 81 or January of ' 82

till he got his first apartment in 85 or

so ' 86 why didn't someone come forward

to lay witness why didn't someone from

elsewhere that had contact with him and

say yeah I known that guy he's goofy

he's crazy he does odd stuff we put him

on that said the opposite that's what

lay witness testimony is and you've got

to sit back and say gee he's lived here

10 years and not one human being came

into this courtroom and said yeah they

had to go out of this states to get

someone to come in here and say that he

wasn't saan they had to do keep that in

mind that's the importance of lay

Witnesses first the lay witnesses that

we put on to say he didn't seem any

strange to us I'll recite all the

questions we asked he didn't seem

strange was but consider the negative he

put on no one to come in and say yeah

he's odd he's different he's strange I

noticed this I noticed that he talked

incoherent he babbled here not one

witness and he's lived here 10

years I asked you three things about the

expert Witnesses in the Vader I said

would you consider their

experience their competence and their

thoroughness experience competence and

thoroughness I'll talk in a few minutes

about that but that's what I asked on

the Vader and you indicated all of you

indicated that you would do that

experience competence and thoroughness

which seem to me reasonable grounds

reasonable way to evaluate the

confidence of the expert test of the

expert

Witnesses let's talk about a few things

that were raised by Mr Bole in his

opening statement in terms of this

defendant did not come uh he came did

not come from a a background of

ferocious hardship various people are

beaten and sexually abused by their

parents assaulted by their father

occasionally by a mother by a brother

they're beaten and kicked and knocked

around you know people like that and I

know people like that that have had a

life that was a living hell as a

youngster that lived in fear of a

drunken father to come in and kick and

beat the child to be to be awakened and

and to find out as as the

that someone is touching you sexually

and the terrible confusion that a child

has of a parent sexually molesting that

child all of the experts agreed Mr dmer

had no sexual abuse as a child no

physical abuse as a child there was

there was a problem it was a broken home

there probably people in this jury box

that came from a broken home there

people in this courtroom that came from

a broken home there's word now to some

extent that 40 to 50% of the marriages

are broken homes yeah that's not easy on

a kid I'm not saying it's

easy discussion about friends Dr Becker

talked about friends he had one

particularly good friend at age five uh

that he had the parents gave him a dog

his parents had named Frisky again from

Dr Becker at age s the family moved to

Barberton Ohio they lived there until Mr

dmer was eight age eight Mr dmer recalls

making some good neighborhood

friends called and this went on in later

years he recall being friends with a boy

next door over for a number of years

they eventually had a homosexual

experience touched each other that was a

friend over several years it was not a

violent sexual experience it was a

consensual sexual experience testimony

about a lad named David in fourth grade

where he and defendant and David were

good friends for three years I disagreed

one of the mothers the mother of David

stepped in and said no I don't like this

friendship I feel that sad that that had

happened I moved as a kid a number of

times my dad was in a business that had

us move I hated to leave my friends and

say goodbye to my friends but that

happens to people talked on about

another friend uh his friendship with

Eric went on a number of years at age 15

Mr dmer was in the 10th grade he recall

being F good friends he recall being

friends with a boy named Greg that later

on uh he had a friend named Jeff 6 I

don't know what Jeff 6 at one point

there's testimony Jeff 6 hit some dogs

with a car and how the defendant didn't

care for that but that was a friend of

his this isn't a man that that's lived

been abused and kicked and knocked

around and you say oh we see what

happened he lived in a on a plot of land

in bath Ohio one and a quar Acres nice

home a pond in front of the

house this is not someone that just say

my God he would how could he survive the

way he was abused and so on that didn't

happen in this case you don't have

someone standing here as happens in a

lot of criminal cases saying I was

kicked and beaten and assaulted and

raped denied neglected that's not what

we have here the defendant picked up

some thoughts how and our doctor opined

on it how it may have happen uh the the

the interest in in uh at least in in a

totally compliant sex partner which was

his first choice a live totally

compliant sex partner and an interest

somewhere along the way and that that

would carry over because of the

compliance over to the to sex with a a

dead

person what is this bird that we're

talking about and this again is from the

sexual disorders the dsm3 r manual over

a period of at least 6 months recurrent

intense sexual urges and sexually

arousing fantasies that the person

either acts on or simply is distressed

by sexual urges sexual urges not an urge

to kill not an urge to kill every doctor

that testified there was a unanimity on

that agreement he did not have an urge

to kill he did not enjoy killing he

found killing unpleasant he found it

aversive they say in their technical

words you may recall the most Vivid

description of that when Mr dmer had

drugged Ernest Miller and didn't have

sufficient drugs and he feared that

Ernest Miller was becoming conscious

again and Dr Dr Becker said he went and

got some more alcohol and consumed it

and then took a knife and stabbed Ernest

Miller in the kateed

artery sexual urges is what we're

talking about sexual urges first for a

compliant body a living male and then

sexual urges towards a dead body we've

all got sexual

urges Dr Dr Deets testified that he was

in within the normal range talked about

masturbating as I recall two or three

times a day he said that's in the higher

end of the normal range of the normal

range Dr Becker talked about

masturbating when he started as a Young

Man

uh so in the normal range sexual urge

somehow there's a and this is where the

word compulsion is so tricky

instinctively we think sex with a dead

body repulsive why would someone do that

it must be some comping Force some

compunction inside pushing him into this

he doesn't want to do it that's the

suggestion of the word compulsion but

you have to understand what this

disorder is he didn't experience it as a

compulsion any more than you experience

your sexual desires as a compulsion it

was a sexual desire at one point Mr when

Dr Berlin was rolling along Mr Bole

asked him a question he said however Mr

Bo closed the question I couldn't

couldn't don't remember that but I

remember Dr Berlin's answer he said no

Mr Bole it's sexually exciting for him

so when that's why the word compulsing

is so tricky naturally you think dead

body ah and the word compulsion seems to

what would be pushing you into sex with

a dead body but if if you have a sexual

desire for it and that's what his that's

what the emotion was that's what the

definition I read the definition of

paraphilia from the dsm3 it's the sexual

desire for that just like some people

like a a hopefully is kind of fat man in

his mid-50s and losing a little hair how

people are drawn in this room here there

are different people drawn to different

sexual things some of you may perhaps

enjoy bizarre things sexually and there

there's there's nothing nothing bizarre

between consenting you've read it and

I've read it in pop psychology they say

there's nothing bizarre between

consenting sexual partners if you want

to dress up like uh like uh uh the queen

an and your husband comes in as the king

or vice versa there's nothing bizarre

about that it's consensual and people do

have bizarre

tastes and some people as Dr DEET said

some people have necrophilic tastes and

how did they he talked about how you

relieve it in the same way this

defendant relieved it

except at age

18 at age

18 he decided he had these sexual

desires maybe somebody in this jury box

had a sexual desire at age 18 I had

sexual desires at age 18 let me tell you

I had Keen sexual desires sexual desires

strong

wrong I had to control you had to

control yours what this defendant did he

didn't enjoy the killing he didn't enjoy

the killing but as Fel said it as de

said it poo the others poo described it

as lust lust good oldfashioned solid

word that expresses what's involved here

a desire a God awful terrible thing that

we don't even want to consider what this

defendant did what this defendant did

was this man and this is the one time

I'm going to cite Dr walster because he

said the defendant said he had a choice

on this one this is The Hitchhiker in

bath Ohio he had a choice if to he

decided this man that sits in this

courtroom now who has been described as

average intelligence or Superior

intelligence keep that in mind when you

assess it this man it seems almost

incredible that a man to for sexual

purposes for his SE that satisfaction

his sexual

satisfaction

killed stepen Hicks I don't know Stephen

hick I never

did but he didn't have the right for

sexual pleasure to kill this man so he

had the desire I had desires you had

desires did you fulfill all the desires

you had at age 18 I'm 55 and I've still

got a few that I haven't

satisfied this guy decided

that he is going to make stepen Hicks

die so that he can extend his sexual

desire his Pleasures it's hard hard it's

inhuman to think of what he were

underlying never wanting to kill never

that that urge to kill no sexually

connected desire he's not a sist doesn't

get sexual pleasure out of killing

everybody agrees on that it's not the

sexual desire does not Embrace The

Killing he doesn't like The Killing but

he decides to extend my sexual pleasure

for a couple of days a couple of days I

am going to kill and down the line he

killed after that maybe not Steven toony

he hasn't been charge with Steven toon

because we don't know precisely what

happened but after that that's the story

and don't think oh my God compulsion

because it's so ugly the thought of a

dead body to him it was exciting how

would you like it compliant talk about

the selfishness of totally compliant

sexual partner talk about the underlying

selfishness here the partner does

everything that you want and you do

nothing the partner wants the partner

lies there completely subject you don't

want to have someone have anal

intercourse with you but you drug them

and you have anal intercourse with

him we're talking about a a tremendously

selfish and I'll give a quote here about

his warped selfishness that he gave to

particularly to the to the police about

his own selfish desire

and that's what we're talking about not

an abused beaten sexually assaulted kid

that had no normal exposure to what sex

should be not that at all he did have

the idea no one is saying he didn't that

he didn't have this sexual desire a

sexual desire for a totally compliant

person but that's what we're talking

about here and keep please keep it in

mind a decision to act to satisfy sexual

urges what is the defendant's choice the

time he's

arrested he's got 11

sculls four of them are in flesh F Cho

the head though he hasn't finished the

processing got rid of the flesh he's

deflected them and put them in the

garbage or acidified them and flushed

them down the toilet he hasn't gotten

around to Boiling the skulls clearing

him out to keep his momentos what

choices did Jeffrey dmer have when he

was arrested that day oh he was

cooperative he was cooperative what kind

of choices do you think he had you think

it would be any different maybe we

couldn't have found out who all those

people were but we'd have found out of

who a number were modern odontology you

know that the teeth you can find out who

these people are and the fully INF

fleshed skulls it's their picture and

you publish the picture and you say who

is this so what choices did Jeffrey dmer

have but to cooperate but to cooperate

don't get fooled by oh he wanted to do

this sure he wanted once he when the

situation was what he was in he was

going to try to minimize the dam to

himself to do what he

could another very tragic aspect of this

is sexual urges not try I'm going go

through the litany the through the the

timeline before I stop probably sometime

after lunch that I'll I'll go through

the timeline but after

toomi after Steven toomi there's a

discussion and this is verified with

Fel Deets I think the others as well the

police definitely told the police after

the death of Steven toing decid you're

not going to try to resist those urges

anymore I've had a few diets I've been

on a few diets where I didn't resist the

urge to eat chocolate covered

Donuts but we're not talking about an

urge to eat chocolate covered Donuts

we're talking about an urge for corpses

and a decision you're going to kill

people to get those corpses Mr boil is

pounded on the alcoholic you could maybe

possibly arguably draw more similarities

in a way

an alcoholic wants a

drink a person wants a dead body if he's

in a morg there's a dead body there

there's a drive for that a poll for that

but the alcoholic doesn't say don't

convict me if I go out and kill someone

for a drink you recognize you don't say

to an alcoholic yeah you got a problem

you got to kill somebody for a drink

that's okay we understand this man with

a dead body is going to have an an

attraction to it but you don't say hey

if there's no dead body okay go out and

kill someone and if you don't want to do

it you're aversive to it have a couple

of drinks and kill them but Jeff Jeffrey

you want a dead body go ahead that's

what we're talking about and the the the

the killing is a part from that as de

said it's not part of the paraphilia and

as every doctor said he didn't enjoy the

killing we're not here with a sexual

sadis paraphilia if he was a sexual sis

paraphilia I suppose the doctor to be in

here saying he's a sexual sist

par I want to make one point clear on Dr

Deets as well mil statement it's an

important that that what Dr Deets

disagreed with his colleagues on be

please be very careful here he wanted to

expand the definition of paraphilia Dr

deetz did to include people who who who

didn't act on the paraphilia who weren't

distressed by the paraphilia but still

he said persons that think think about

it all the time even if they're not

distressed by it even if they don't act

on he said the the the category should

be expanded to include that group and

some of his colleagues disagreed with

that and said no we will limit it to

people that act on the paraphilia or

persons who are distressed by it for

over six months that's what Dr Deets

differed on what about what about the

real difference that he pointed what Dr

Deets really pointed out was was that Dr

Berlin the great difference between the

psych the forensic psychiatric Community

looking at paraphilia and saying look it

that's not a defense to a murder case

that's not a defense to a murder case of

paraphilia he said no that's that isn't

done except the only forensic

psychiatrist that he knew of that

subscribed to that idea was Dr Fred

Berlin who do we see here testifying Dr

Fred Berlin comes in to

testify I think you've got to you've got

to think I talked about experience

thoroughness confidence this is a 15

count murder case you've got three

experts never none of them testified in

a murder case before Dr Fred Berlin has

testified in responsibility seven to

nine times seven to nine times on

responsibility and has never testified

on responsibility in a murder case never

testified on responsibility in a murder

case and he is the only identified

forensic psychiatrist by Dr DEET who

subscribes to the idea that a paraphilia

is a defense on a responsibility issue

he is the only one Dr Dr D said that he

knows of that would say what this man

has is a defense to a murder

case hence he's appearing here for his

first

experience is testifying on

non-responsibility in a murder case Dr

Becker a nice lady Dr Berlin is well in

terms of treatment yes Dr Becker has

never testified on responsibility she

told you not just in a murder case she

has never testified on anything from

disorderly conduct upward never

testified on the murder responsibility

case Dr walstrom never testified on a

Mur in a murder case Dr walstrom

completed his training his Fellowship

although he'd been a doctor several

years he completed his Fellowship in

July of

1992 he is less today when he testified

he was less than seven or eight months

out of his training period less than

seven or eight months out of his

training period he had never testified

in a murder case or a robbery case or a

burglary case he has testified once

before he's testified on on an exposure

in an indecent exposure

case so between all three of the defense

experts you've got Berlin seven to nine

times you've got walstrom once so that

make that 10 and you've got Becker never

so 10 all together among the three of

them they've testified 10 times on

responsibility and never testified in a

murder case you got to shake your head

on that one and say hey what's going on

here what's going on

here you've got a defense you've got Dr

Berlin heading the team raising a

defense that Dr de said the forensic

psychiatric Community simply does not

support that's what the defense is here

and you have to ask why these totally

almost totally will on murder among

among three of them 10 appearances as

for on responsibility among the three of

them we brought to this

courtroom hundreds of experiences

through Dr Deets and Dr foso the court

appointed Dr poo with hundreds of times

you think the court would appoint

someone 6 Months 8 months out of

training what would you say about that

eight months out of training you've got

to seriously weigh that and say what's

going on in this courtroom with a serial

killer 15 murders charge at least 17

that he's involved in and we wind up

with three experts who have never

testified in the murder case and

altogether have only testified 10 times

on the issue of mental

responsibility what's going on

here I'd like to talk about

[Music]

planning here's what the defendant said

to the

police say the

the as follows at this time I began

you've heard this read I'm going to ReRe

it reread it to you because I think it's

that important at this time I began to

question dmer regarding the way in which

he would decide which individuals to

approach this is related to individuals

that eventually became victims of

his listen to this he stated that before

going out for the evening he generally

would know whether or not he planned to

commit a homicide

and before going out he would prepare

the drug by powderized it and leaving it

in the glass on the countertop of his

kitchen he States once at the bar he

would generally drink by himself and

observe the different individuals in the

gay establishment he states that it did

not matter the color race or ethnic

Heritage of any of his victims as long

as they met what he would call the phys

physical profile file he stated that

this was generally from mid to late

teens to mid 20s males with a medium

height slender build and generally

smooth skin he stated upon sitting in

the taverns and drinking he would notice

one maybe two or three who fit this

profile whom he found attractive he also

stated that he would generally look for

the individuals that were

alone or not with a tight-knit group he

States upon deciding which victim he

found attractive he would generally wait

until approximately bar time which would

be closing at the tavern and then as the

patrons were were filing up he would

approach the victim and ask if they wish

to accompany him home for either

pictures sexual contact or for cocktails

many of the times offering the money he

States this was his General routine

except for times when he met some of his

victims on the street in front of the

bookstores and then the same routine

as far as offering money for sex

photographs or cocktails plans it before

he goes out

coldblooded

planning for sexual

satisfaction your life your

life your life for my sexual

satisfaction your body will rot in a

couple of days so my sexual satisfaction

for a couple of days is going to cost

you your

life another statement to the police he

stated the reason why he would have the

taxi drop him off several blocks from

his apartment was in order to keep the

taxi driver from knowing exactly where

he lived at and to see if anyone had

been following him as he did not want

anyone to detect his

activities and the defense for that

planning that that cold blooded planning

the defense is this paraphilia defense

this paraphilia defense I'm not saying

it's not a real problem but it's a new a

new argument a new argument that Dr

Berlin came in for the first time in his

experience to testify

to I've talked a little bit about the

doctors no one is saying that anyone's a

charlatan no one that that not saying

that I've asked you to in the wad to

talk about

experience Dr Berlin is experienced in

treatment Dr Becker is experienced in

treatment and I've talked already about

the total lack of experience in terms of

forensic assessment Dr Berlin is

apparently a a forensic psychiatrist

apparently unto himself that feels this

paraphilia should mean that a person

should not be held responsible for it Dr

Becker I I do not know uh she She is

totally without experience at all

testifying

so until she testified to that one would

assume it would not be known what her

attitude was because she had not

testified before on

it Dr walstrom a fine young man he's not

young he worked a little while before he

went on through medical school but he's

a fine young man and uh he hung tough he

talked about that he was psychotic he

was the only doctor the court doctors

said no he's not psychotic Dr Berlin and

Dr Becker said he's not psychotic and Dr

uh our doctors Dr fosull and Dr DEET

said he's not psychotic but Dr walstrom

the man just out of training said no he

is

psychotic and I pointed out I said well

doctor and I I referred to a Dr Charles

loel that had examined the defendant on

January 5 1989 said Dr look at this Dr

LEL examined him and he said he's not

psychotic and Dr wson said well when did

he do it I said January of 1989 the

murders were

underway Dr wiom didn't respond after

that I pointed out that when he was at

at

Deep uh and trying to address the where

he was being required to address the

drinking problem the Dr Greg crem had

examined him and Dr crem I pointed out

Dr crem said he's got no psychotic

processes thought processes Dr walstrom

Hung tough you you have to credit him

for hanging tough all the doctors looked

at it at that issue I'll touch on

various reasons why they did but all the

doctor looked at it and all the

experienced doctors said he is not

psychotic all of them said that except

Dr walstrom eight months out of his

training period I'm not saying that's

not a personal attack on Dr walon he may

be a very fine man but it's it's raising

a question would you expect that Mr that

the defendant's attorney here would be

eight months out of Law

School in in a case with 15 counts of of

murder and yet the psychiatrist was 8

months out of his training

program how much time did the doctor

spend Dr Berlin said he spent 4 hours

and 45 minutes 4 hours and 45 minutes

with the

defendant if depending on how you handle

this you are going to rule his attitude

in one particular way I started talking

about the separate cases after the first

several well he said I I don't have to

count the trees to know I'm in a forest

well you're going to have to count the

trees you're coming back on separate

counts that's why each of my doctors

went count by count that's why I kept

you in the box that Saturday afternoon

when you perhaps were ready to to say to

me Mr mccan pull the shade and leave

because I wanted you to know that Dr

fosle went through it count by count

because a skilled forensic psychiatrist

knows that one day you would be going

through it count by count and I don't

know what you're going to do with Dr

Berlin's statement I don't have to count

all the trees to know I'm in a forest

because youve got to count all those

trees that's why I had Dr Deets go

through it count by count pointing out

why it was why he appreciated the

wrongfulness here and why he could

conform his conduct to the requirements

of law because I knew you'd have to go

through it count by

count I don't know what you're going to

do with Dr Berlin several things I asked

him which I thought were reasonable

questions I said did he intend to plan

did he plan to kill SS this is the

sexual assault case SS yes he did did

you ask him that doctor no I didn't I

knew he intended to do

it Dr Becker said that he told Dr Becker

that he didn't kill SS because they're

going to go to work that night that's

what he told fosil that's what he told

Deets that's an important control

question sexual urge sexual urge that

says look at I got to go to work work

tonight if you'll forgive a story that

uh the man that said to honey I love you

I'll fight lines I'll climb

mountains and if it doesn't rain tonight

I'll come over and see you how strong is

that sexual urge and Deets asked that he

talked about it being within the normal

range how strong is that sexual urge

Berlin said he was going to kill him he

was going to kill him I think there was

pretty much agreement that he was going

to kill hours but was there agreement

that he was going to kill Becker said he

said he's that's what he told our

doctors too how did Berlin find that

another Point Berlin said well he this

ritual cutting up of the body I said

Doctor did you ask him did you ask him

if he was involved in a ritual he said

no I didn't ask him I knew it had to be

that

way well our doctors asked him at length

and he talked about it being an honorous

troublesome job he didn't like it

cutting it up he didn't like doing it

when he was the grandmother's house he

wore old clothes and did it we asked him

how'd you do it at grandmother's house

how' you do it at your place he got down

to his place he didn't like to get his

clothes spattered he'd be naked but he

didn't like the job he didn't like it he

liked an open this he liked to

masturbate into an open thing but he

never liked cutting up the bodies how

can Dr Berlin say there was a ritual

when when he denied there was and said

he didn't he didn't like the job you got

to question that but when you only see a

person for 4 hours and 45 minutes you

don't have the time to ask those

questions I figure there were 20

important incidences here 20 plus the

family background let's say that Dr

Berlin took the family background for 45

minutes and all of them felt it was

important that left him 4

hours 4 time 60 is 240 minutes you got

the 15 slayings and each one should be

explored as our psychiatrist did you got

the 15 slangs you got the the decision

not to kill SS you've got the flowers

incident and you got the lp incident

those are three important incidences to

explore and then you've

got Stephen HS and Steve toi 17 bodies

17 bodies two of them not char

all of them have to be explored plus the

three that he didn't kill flowers SS and

LP 20 important things to explore in my

opinion as well as the family background

and other issues of course if you spend

if you're Dr Berlin and you spend 45

minutes on the

family you got 20 incidences and 240

minutes to cover the territory that's

about 10 or 12 minutes a piece you can't

do it yes you could Council can work up

things could make it easier but you

don't rely on Counsel maybe it's helpful

you ask the questions yourself that's

what our doctors

did Dr fosle spent 17 hours I think you

said Dr Deets spent 18 hours you got a

tough job in front of you 15 murders

this is not a single count charge where

you can go over the facts in in in in a

couple of hours this is 15 17 homicides

spread over a number of years and three

that there were that didn't result in a

homicide you can't say I see the forest

I don't count the trees because it's

important to know did he want to kill SS

or not to ask him that did was there a

ritual involved did he somehow enjoy

chopping up the bodies did he enjoy that

was there a ritual chanting while he

chopped up the bodies told everybody

there wasn't he told no doctor that

there was when our doctors asked him he

said no there wasn't he didn't like the

the

job but Dr Berlin says no there was a

ritual but he didn't ask and I think you

you you got to say 4 hours and 45

minutes doctor maybe it just isn't

enough and he met for an hour and 10

minutes the day before he he began to

testify there's a question left there

that that is raised in my mind Dr Berlin

testified that he told her something

that that night that he masturbated into

the viscera that's what he told Dr blind

the night before the psychiatric

testimony testified we questioned who

was there with you Dr Berlin and one of

the lawyers was where there with Dr

Berlin with Dr Becker but Dr Berlin

didn't testify about that I asked Berlin

well what are do you four of the cases I

said well look at there was no sex in

four of the cases apparently uh that

after they after they died he said no

I'm sure there was well did you ask I

know there was I didn't have to ask I

know there was but he said nothing about

being told that and I pushed him on that

issue he never said well dmer told me

that and yet he was up there Sunday

night I don't know what that means I I

do not know what that means but uh was

he not listening I don't know but in any

event I I uh Dr beckard interviewed him

for eight and a half

hours uh this was her first

responsibility case um I'm sure she felt

that she did what was she felt was

sufficient although we're talking about

really I think 20 instances of

seriousness Dr walstrom interviewed him

for 10 and a half hours I believe and

maybe came back another time uh but uh

he is a

conscientious newly emerged into the

into the profession and uh uh I'm sure

he took it

conscientiously Dr Berlin has never

testified for the prosecution I asked

him oh doctor you've been the competency

issue may recall seven to nine times was

the competency issue that Berlin said he

testified other times child molesting

cases at the disposition level of child

molesting cases where he would be there

testify in presumably about his program

and what his program could do for the

child molester I asked him in all those

years I think he said he'd become a

psychiatrist in 75 or 76 or 77 he been

the district he's been out there for 15

years as a psychiatrist I said Doctor

did you ever testify for the Baltimore

City District State's Attorney no I

didn't did you ever testify for the

Baltimore County State's Attorney no I

didn't did you ever testify for any

State's Attorney in the state of

Maryland no I did how about the change

over of Das that happens in any

Community where they're elected there's

a change over in those 15 years none of

the district attorneys the State's

Attorneys have asked Dr Berlin to

testify well do what about in other

states no no other states attorney asked

him to testify what about for the

federal government no Dr Berlin is

called upon to testify only by the

defense important you consider

that especially when Dr Deets identifies

him as being the only forensic

psychiatrist he knows that advances the

theory that a paraphilia is a defense on

a responsibility charge in a murder case

legitimate question to ask he may be an

intensely compassionate man wrapped up

in treatment in fact there are several

said yes I'd refer someone for treatment

no one said I would refer anyone him for

forensic a forensic psychiat psychiatric

evaluation does a person involved in

treatment principally a very caring man

do you over identify sometimes that's

the issue you have to ask do you over

identify I want to tell you who I I

identify

with this has got to be done who are

these people that died you didn't see

their relatives come in and testify

because there was a guilty plea you

didn't hear the facts in great detail I

don't want you to forget it I don't want

you you to forget who they

are sometimes and this is when I'm in my

work naturally I see people getting very

concerned about a defendant what's

happened to a defendant and because the

victim is gone and dead the victim isn't

there to say hey what about me what what

about

me don't forget Steven

TWY who died in the Ambassador Hotel

with the

defendant don't forget Richard James

docor on that board James doctor age

15 picked up by the

defendant age

15 don't forget Richard Guerrero who

died at the defendant's

hands don't forget Anthony Sears who

died at the defendant's

hands

don't forget Raymond Smith who died at

the defendant's

hands don't forget Edward Smith who died

at the defendant's

hands don't forget Ernest Miller who was

stabbed to death by the defendant

because he was becoming conscious the

defendant had to get a drink to do it

don't forget Ernest Smith

don't forget David Thomas strangled by

the

defendant don't forget Curtis strer

strangled to death by the

defendant don't forget Earl Lindsay

first drilled and eventually killed by

the

defendant don't forget Tony Anthony

Hughes

first drilled then extinguished by the

defendant don't forget Conor cesm

phone age as I recollect age

14 for a couple of days of sexual

pleasure Conor sent to some pH age

14 don't forget Matt Turner extinguished

by the

defendant don't forget Jeremiah

Weinberger drilled who made it alive

struggled for life for a day and a half

before he died at the hands of the

defendant don't forget Oliver Lacy dying

at the hands of the

defendant don't forget Joseph bradof

dying at the hands of the

defendant

his

hands those hands you've seen on that

table wrapped them firsty drug people so

they couldn't resist and that's being

portrayed to you as a kindly act a

kindly act he he drugged them before he

killed what a kind and considerate

defendant as I thought about preparing

my final

argument I thought you remember LP made

it alive because he didn't have enough

to drug him he tried to hit him in the

back and LP got out out SS got out

because he got out before the drugs took

effect flowers got out because the

grandmother song but I thought to myself

is that a kindly act or a cowardly act

to drug them before you kill him you

think if I ask each one of these men

each one of these young men even down to

the to the 14year old Conor and the 15y

old doctor I said look it would you like

to take him on with your bare hands give

him his knife

and take him on every one of them said

my God give me a chance for my life of

course I'd rather let him have his knife

and I'll confront him barehanded and

fight for my

life foul and decent vicious act to drug

him first so a man didn't even have a

chance to reach out to grasp for life to

reach out that was no favor don't kill

me by drugging me my God come at me with

a knife or a gun I'll fight for my life

but don't drug

me that's what he did and then for three

minutes five minutes Dr poos said for

five minutes it takes to strangle the

life out of a man five

minutes want to do that it pick it off

how long it

takes triangle man to

death try the jury R try it for five

minutes and everybody says he except

except for wal knew what he was doing in

touch with reality knew it was wrong

knew it was

wrong don't kill me with a drug please

give me a chance take a knife in each

hand take a gun in each hand but don't

drug me before you kill me that's no

favor to me that's no favor don't kid

yourself told the police initially with

with David Thomas his initial statement

of the police was I wasn't drawn to him

I wasn't sexually drawn to him but I was

afraid when he woke up he'd be angry

quote he'd be quote pissed off so I

killed him later on he changes his

testimony said no he had sex with him

that's what he told the police he'd be

pissed off and the second person Raymond

Smith there's discussion about that too

being concerned about Raymond Smith the

man that's been referred to as Raymond

Smith and cash

D so with respect to the doctors for the

defense conscientious I don't think you

can do it 4 hours and 45 minutes I don't

think you can do it in in uh for a man

right out of school can do it in 10

hours or 10 and a half or 12 or whatever

you put into it for a man that just

finished his training I don't think

that's sufficient and Dr Becker who was

conscientious obviously but has never

ever testified never wrestled with the

issue of criminal responsibility and

she's treatment oriented and that's good

that's good but what we don't we want

and they can understand a feeling my

colleague asked about using the name

Jeffrey well other several other people

use the name Jeffrey but she read that

long thing where the name Mr dmer Mr

dmer Mr dmer appeared I like people that

are

compassionate but when I want an expert

opinion an independent unbiased expert

opinion and then I want someone that can

provide that and the issue here is

responsibility

responsibility let's shift into the

doctors Dr George poo

experienced tremendously experienced man

he talked about his experience in Europe

as an experience here in Italy talked

about his first experience as a when he

was at a hospital in Colorado apparently

some man that spoke only Italian got

involved in a in a slang of some type

some incident where there was a court

procedure and at first you thought that

somehow he as a resident got involved in

this court proceeding as testifying said

oh no and I asked oh no no no I wasn't I

was just in my training

didn't testify in that but he assisted

in it he heard a very candid man he's a

delightful man you liked him I liked him

you saw him here he's he's not he's not

he's being forthright he came in he said

look at I got the appointment I thought

he must be crazy he must be crazy look

what he did but after he spent he spent

I think he said a total of 12 and a half

hours with him said he is not insane

Jeffrey dmer is not insane and he went

in thinking he went in the kind of a

bias that he must be said no he is not

not someone asked him about

schizophrenia and he said this is Way

Beyond schizophrenia Way Beyond a

schizophrenic can do only certain things

and that brought to mind that you found

an echo in that in Dr Fel Dr fasal

psychiatrist broad experience testified

across the state numerous times 20 years

he said Mr mccan the most bizarre cases

I've seen in my practice are not by

insane people they are by in by sane

people not insane people and he said if

you may recall the mental ill get bum

wrapped thinking that this type that

this is something out of mental illness

don't bum wrap the mentally ill by

claiming by finding that this man is

mentally ill as as as as as Dr poo said

yes he got problems no one is saying he

doesn't have problems I'm not standing

up here saying he's a healthy healthy

with no problems I'm not saying that I'm

not saying that he had strange sexual

desires he acted on

them and killed to satisfy them that's

why we're here he is not and all of them

by the way all of them said a at least

average intelligence and several of them

I think poo was one of them that said no

this man has a superior intelligence not

average

Superior his qualifications are

extensive broad experience he's

testified often nonresponsibility cases

many times times uh he provided his

background his teaching where he's

taught how he's been Affiliated where

he's an Adjunct professor and so on he

as I see my note here he did speak he

did examine him for 12 and a half

hours he appeared to be of high

intelligence had a certain degree of

emotional tranquility and easiness while

discussing the matters at hand it talks

about the does not evidence any

remorse the memory was good his speech

was always coherent and relevant and his

ideas progressed logically he was fully

cooperative if his effect was

appropriate to the situation his memory

for past and recent events was

good goes on talks about alcohol most of

them made except for Dr Berlin who added

it but in their initial findings said

he's alcohol dependent and we've

Advanced that and argued it and

submitted it and he talks about the

incidences then he says

this the above was not part of a frenzy

type of behavior but was very but but

was every time the outcome of a

calculated pre-arranged plan that the

defendant was able to carry out these

heinous

[Music]

crimes the defendant again from Dr Dr

poo the defendant did not seem to have a

great deal of remorse for his killings

he seemed to want to emphasize that lust

and power were the basis of his actions

lust someone should die for

that in addition he concluded as my

professional psychiatric opinion to a

reasonable degree of medical certainty

that the defendant Jeffrey dmer was

legally sane at the time of the offenses

he has been charged with indeed he

possessed substantial mental capacity to

differentiate right from wrong refrain

from wrongdoing appreciate the nature

and quality of that of his actions and

conform with the requirements of the law

he wasn't hired by me he wasn't hired by

Mr Bole he was hired by the court the

court will instruct you about

appropriate weight to be given to a

court expert and you must abide by that

instruction but I submit to you he's no

Hired Gun for the defense he's no Hired

Gun for the prosecution he said he's

testified on both sides of these

issues does the court want to break at

this point thisfor you find okay we'll

break for lunch at this point we'll

reconvene at 1:15 courts and

recess SE

please at what point I one

oh I think you if I recall you have

about an hour an hour and five minutes

left I shall stop at 2:30

then ladies and gentlemen the jury I'm

I'll be speaking till about 2:30 I know

this is a tough time after lunch I know

it's tough for all of us and I I know

this the seriousness with which you view

this and uh I will have to speak rapidly

because there's a great deal to cover

and I trust that my rapid speaking

doesn't put you to

sleep the we've we've talked already

about Dr poo and I've read his opinion

to you that the defendant was fully

responsible and that did not lack

substantial capacity and so on the next

uh the second Court expert was Dr uh

Samuel fredman he is a psychologist he

testified as to his expertise in the

area and uh among the things that he did

was uh State the following as he read

his report that in dealing with probable

ideological factors Mr dmer implicates

concepts of lust and control further he

said said feelings of lust particularly

concerning adolescent youthful males of

well proportioned physique and finally

his opinion was as follow in addressing

the issue of criminal responsibility it

can be stated that there is no substance

to The ngi Plea That's Not Guilty by

reason of insanity no substance to the

to an ngi plea at the time of the

alleged offenses Mr dmer was fully able

to appreciate right for wrong and to

conform his conduct to the dictates of

the law now it should be pointed out uh

that these are two very experienced men

you saw them they're senior men

obviously u poo is a very broad

experience freedman's broad experience

and experience in life came in as

independent independently appointed by

the court and gave their opinion there

was a difference uh in in some

particularities there was a difference

between them on how they perceived the

mental disease issue and let me speak to

that mental disease issue uh a number of

the psychiatrist testified that yes

there is a different perception with

within the profession of whether a

paraphilia is a mental disease or not

that issue was knocked back and forth

and it's clear that there is a

difference in the profession you're

going to get an instruction from the

judge that it's up to you to decide what

label you really have a very broad

discretion in determining what's a

mental disease or not the court will

tell you that you're not going to be

constrained by what any psychiatrist

says that it's going to be up to you to

decide what's a mental disease or not

and the court will give you an

instruction an abnormal condition of the

mind and so forth don't see that as a

big issue in this case in this here

between the court experts there was a

split both of them said he is fully

competent both of them said that there's

no merit to The ngi Plea he has the

capacity to appreciate wrongfulness he

has the capacity to conform his conduct

to the requirements law both of them

ruled that way and one said there's

mental disease and one said there isn't

it's up to you to decide I don't don't

get hung up on it and my suggestion is

don't get hung up on it because the

definition that the court will give you

you decide you're not constrained by any

label to me the real issue in this case

is Conformity that's what we what the

experts for the both both of the experts

of the Court said that there is capacity

to conform capacity to appreciate

wrongfulness that's what our experts

said uh that is the issue really before

the court is the defense is already

conceded that uh in effect that right

from wrong the defendant knew no

psychiatrist took the stand and said the

defendant didn't know right from wrong

except maybe walstrom did I don't really

recollect walstrom but certainly Becker

and Berlin said he knows right from

wrong the the experts from the court

said he knows right from wrong our

experts said he knows right from wrong

we discussed it with our experts down

the line particularly Dr DEET broke out

every case on the right from wrong issue

and I don't think that's really an issue

and I think with the broad definition

that the Court gives you you decide

what's a mental disease and I don't see

that as a as a hang-up because the the

court experts and the state's experts

said no the the capacity to appreciate

the wrong

and to conform is there and I think

that's the essential issue of the case

and I think to get hung up on the debate

say between the court the two court

experts is it the mental disease or not

the issue is capacity both of the Court

experts say yes the substantial capacity

is there Freedman very bluntly says

there's no merit to The ngi Plea or

whatever the what was the exact word he

rather forcefully articulate there is no

substance to an ngi plate so I would

suggest you not get hung up over the

issue of of the mental disease are not

the real issue is control and even as

the courts experts ruled that there was

believe there was opine that there was

control there so do our experts Although

our experts also see a difference on

that issue as psychiatrists do so the

critical issue isn't really whether we

call paraphilia a mental disease or not

because you're going to decide that and

nothing the doctors say as the court

will tell you is that you make that

decision you're not at all bound by what

any doctor said if all of them came in

here together and said this is not a

mental disease you still have the

authority to say yes it is or if they

all came in and said it is a mental

disease you have the authority to say oh

no it isn't so you have a very broad

Authority in that area and the fact that

do split as the the courts expert split

as ours split I would say don't make

that don't hang up on that as you have a

very broad capacity to Define mental

disease and the real issue is Conformity

I'd like to speak about citizen

Witnesses and and their perception of

the defendant and we asked them

basically the same questions as they

testified first the ones that had the

the very extensive experience with the

defendant and that that is at the place

at which he worked Mr Benning and Mr

Haney who testified they had had contact

with him he started in 1985 at the

Westside Chocolate Factory uh worked

there until July of 1991 so you have an

experience of six years there with the

defendant day in day out what do you

work 2,000 there's 2,000 40 hours say

your knockof two weeks vacation is 280

and a 52 week There's 280 working hours

say if you make it a four-week vacation

knock it down to 1,00 plus and with two

men's vacations are different perhaps

you've got but you've got about you've

got well over 1,900 hours a year that

you're working there and over a six-year

period and both of them came forward and

we asked must have sounded like a litany

to you but it was the same questions

basically did you see any delusions did

you see any hallucinations did you see

any

incoherence any catatonic stuper of any

type any stuper was he able to relate

his thoughts to one another did he have

racing thoughts was he out of touch with

reality in any way and they said no

they'd worked with him over all those

years and said no they've spent

literally thousands of hours more than

Dr Deets more than Dr Fel you can add up

all the hours the doctors put together

and they're a p compared to the time

that that Benning and and uh Haney work

and they're supervising him they're

watching him they're relating to him

giving directions watching how he's

doing and so on so you you have a a

tremendous birth of experience there the

court as we indicated at badir the court

will instruct you on what way to give

lay Witnesses but goodness sakes that's

a lot of time to be with a guy who's

claiming that he's uh should not be held

responsible because of a a mental

disease that's a lot of time to spend

say no you see nothing like that we

didn't see anything like

nobody disappeared from the Chocolate

Factory none of the workers there we

also called some other people sockwell

princewell Prince Soo the manager of the

of the where he resided where he lived

we went right to where he lived talked

to the manager that had had dealings

with him no he said no he's been a good

tenant not had trouble in fact which I

want to be honest surprised me he said

that's that he had the neatest apartment

in the building this isn't the man

living in a you ought to see my bedroom

hate to say that you might think that

hey compare that apartment to mcan's

bedroom U what we're saying is this

isn't a a wildly deranged apartment even

with the activities that he was doing

there uh he said that and others that

visited when the officers came in in the

midst of the Conor involvement the

officers came into that apartment said

no it's basically a neat apartment so

that you you have here's a guy living

alone I didn't get married till I was 34

34 a man keeping his apartment alone

clean relatively neat according to soap

well princewell soapa the neatest in his

building I submit to you is is is living

a a is not a wildly disordered lifestyle

uh SOA testified to his own education

how how that he had seen him at the time

he talked to him from time to time about

complaints about odors uh the defendant

responded to that soapa even considered

going into business with them well the

did the question was put as an investor

well maybe everybody wants an investor

in their business but on redirect the

question was was put on redirect well

did you anticipate that he would stop in

and visit with your customers and he

said yes uh so that and then he was put

the question did you ever see him with

delusions hallucinations incoherent was

he able to relate his thoughts to one

another racing thoughts was he in a

stuper was he out of touch with reality

in any way he said no no no no that's

that was not Jeffrey dber we called also

a man named Kyle wayy who on 71291 the

defendant had decided to increase his

the barrels he was going to get going to

get fired and developed the capacity to

wipe out all the bones the skulls and

everything if he chose to do that Dr

Deets talked about that that he was

weighing that whether he had laid in the

muriatic acid 16 gallons of muriatic

acid powerful acid and was thinking of

of of doing away with all the evidence

the Beloved supposedly skulls for the

temple would be wiped out completely

flushed down the drain he'd have walked

out on July 31st with not a wit of

physical evidence not a wit remaining

that's why he got the acid the bigger

Barrel that's what he was thinking of

wayy sold him that barrel and talked

about him they spent some time together

he seemed normal to wayy took him

through the same questions delusions

hallucinations incoherence related

thoughts racing thoughts super out of

touch with reality said no they talked

about the different size of barrels how

they were and uh they completed the sale

we talked to a Mr Alton from the

hardware store to bring you right up to

date recently people talking with him as

he was getting in the muriatic it a

substantial quantity Alton said yeah

it's almost wholesale bulk to to get

that much of course he not at all

dreaming that this was going to be used

to to reduce down bones and possibly

skulls down to pulp to get flushed down

the toilet we talked to the carpet

cleaner that visited the home several

times he also spoke of it as a

relatively trim knee department and what

transpired there the efforts of the

defendant to apparently remove what was

blood uh but telling him no it's it's a

it is not blood it's chocolate uh and he

not knowing whether it was red wine or

precisely what it was so we presented

citizen witnesses to you a cross-section

of Citizen Witnesses again I tell you 10

years in this city and the defendant

produced no one that's important that's

what you call negative evidence you

don't just consider what our positive

lay Witnesses you say to yourself if

he's been here 10 years powerfully

strange that no one says hey uh this is

what a situation is I'd like to talk

then uh to Dr

Fel again you forgive me if I'm moving

at a pretty fast clip Dr fosle testified

how he saw him starting back on October

16th he saw him for five times you know

from that Saturday afternoon how

exhausted he was how careful in

particular 17 hours went into each case

discussed each case each incident into

the background a very careful

professional able practitioner a

day-to-day forensic psychiatrist in

Wisconsin has appeared throughout the

state as an expert witness had extensive

experience earlier in his career he told

you he had worked at the uh on under the

sexual deviant law at that time in

Wisconsin he had worked up in the won

area and also in Madison at facilities

where he processed and evaluated

numerous sexual offenders or alleged

sexual offenders referred by the courts

this is a man with a substantial

experience in evaluating sex offenders

uh he advised what uh that his

interviews he read read substantially

from his notes you could see what a what

a careful worker he was and what his

conclusion was that this defendant did

have the substantial capacity to

appreciate the wrongfulness of his

conduct and of his of and and to conform

his conduct to the requirements of the

law we put on an expert that has done

that hundreds of times not someone

that's here to talk about their first

murder

case and uh he was engaged by the state

contacted by me said a day or two after

it uh after this these events unfolded

uh and consulted with us and stated that

uh he is most frequently appointed by

the court he is most frequently brought

on by the court although he might be

recommended by one side of the other but

most frequently he testifies as a courta

appointed expert he said he approximated

in about 25% of the time he supports the

plea in other words about 25% of the

cases that he's involved in he comes in

in fact I think as I recall that he said

twice in the month of January that in

this County and twice in the month of

January he had returned findings that

the person involved in the case was was

uh met the criteria for uh not being

responsible under the law uh this is a I

submit to you as an independent man of

integrity a thoroughgoing professional

who demonstrated his commitment to doing

this thoroughly uh and experienced

competent and found that the defendant

uh had the substantial capacity to to

appreciate the wrongfulness of his

conduct and to comply his cond conduct

with the requirements of the law some of

the issues that he noted I'll I'll be

touching on further as I directly

address the issue of control but some of

the exact quotes out of his notes that

might be of interest to you quote it's

kind of quoting the defendant it's kind

of pathetic it's my own fault if I had

chosen a different path life would have

been different further asked when asked

what he was blaming the defendant said I

have one person to blame the person

sitting across from you no one else no

one put a gun to my head I had choices

to make and I made the wrong choices I

could have made different choices in the

past it's obvious to me if I had more

foresight went on to say at one point

going to the bass house houses quote

kept me somewhat satisfied for a while

uh then started uh after he was closed

out of the bathouses started looking

around for greater satisfaction spoke

said he took two or three men back to

Grandmother's home house whom he did not

kill they left later when asked how he

decided which ones he let go he said

those that left I met while I was quite

drunk I lost my attraction to them as I

sobered up this a man with a sexual

drive that's

a abnormal a man that's able to control

it because what he wanted from them was

sex remember it isn't the killing that

he that he takes pleasure in it's the

sex during the the period of pendency of

the of the SS case talks about a 3-month

break said he still had the desire but

there was quote too much legal activity

going on closed quote so he just used

pornography and

videotapes and asked about the laps in a

certain time period he said he continued

to engage in pornography and attended

bath clubs in Chicago uh that he was not

going to engage in more homicide was

going to wait till he got his own

apartment and understood that uh in in

discussion that he was sometimes he said

that he was often quote too tired close

quote or quote didn't have the time

close quote to find another

victim during the interludes said he did

not have any planned times when he

wanted to pick someone up again just

when he had the time but admitted that

the desire and the interest were there

then talking uh about uh Dr Fel told you

and I'll dwell on a little more

carefully how he never would take

someone that had a car isn't that sexual

ual desire talk about being able to

control your sexual desire if you choose

I suppose if you thought about it for a

while about sexual desire you know I

love you I love you honey but uh you got

a car or you don't have a car that

sounds like really overwhelming sexual

desire doesn't it that's the desire he

could handle it because he doesn't want

to run a chance of being caught because

if the guy had a car as he told bzel the

car comes home and sits out in the

street he doesn't have a license a

driver's license the police would be

suspicious if that car was there does

that sound like overwhelming sexual

drive he would Target them see them

leaving at the bar there yeah I'd like

that guy get a guy alone get him as the

bar closes go up does he has a car

sorry come on get serious get

serious able to control your sexual

desire you have a car

not not kid ourselves about what's going

on here planning it

again I remind you what Dr Fel said my

most bizarre act the cases he's handled

where the most bizarre acts occur are

not the mentally ill don't bum wrap the

mentally ill with this type of a

case Dr

D exceptional qualifications I don't

think you you saw that curriculum V it

was handed to you this is a man of

extraordinary ability I don't think that

anyone could dispute that uh he is

gifted he's worked hard he got his

degree at at John Hopkins and he went

and taught at the Harvard Medical School

that is a a uh tremendous thing for a

young man coming out they assigned him

up to Bridgewater he said they were

trying to trying to change the bridge

the image of the Bridgewater Medical

hospital and and it became where they're

processing people they're going into the

courts so he was involved in hundreds of

evaluations of people going into court

through the Bridgewater Hospital in the

state of Massachusetts as he taught on

the Harvard faculty uh and in the

medical school there running that

particular program involved him in

people uh hundreds of cases of people

that were on their way to the courts

that were passing through the

Bridgewater hospital he was then said he

was approached by the government to work

on the team in the hinley case and then

worked uh for a period of time on the

hinley case he then accepted a double

involvement at the University of Min of

the University of Virginia where he was

on both the law school and the medical

school faculties law school and medical

we have an unusual combination here is a

forensic psychiatrist invited at a

respected law school respected Medical

Institute to be on both faculties this

is a man knowledgeable in the law and

knowledgeable in medicine a thoroughly

thoroughly qualified individual has he

done a lot of work for the government

you bet CIA Mr Bole elicited those

distinguished cases National cases that

you've read about uh then he talked

about serial murder cases in which he

has

testified there's been more than one

murder talked about the Arthur shawcross

case he has written and researched in

the area of Serial killing this

defendant is a serial killer he is a

serial killer this psychiatrist has

testified in such case has researched

such case cases and has written about

such cases you get who has been on a law

faculty and a Medical Faculty a uniquely

qualified commentator on the legal scene

and on the psychiatric scene uh and he

is a top-notch individual towards the

end of the day the second day when Mr

Bole was

cross-examining I must confess I had

assumed because the defendant and I'll

said it again and again think I read it

at the opening statement I can read it

again on alcohol that if V had said he

was drunk every time he did it he had

drank well I think maybe everybody

relied on that and Mr Bole put a

question to him this was late in in the

in his cross- examination well doctor

have you always assumed that he was

under the influence because of his

statements and he said oh no and he

turned told there he was his notes

flipped open the notes Jeff 6 he quotes

Jeff 6 from high school starts quoting

from high school what happened at High

School what what military discipline was

levied on the defendant for intoxication

I tell you I I I just I was taking the

back myself as he started to go through

Spa incident by incident in the military

released from the military early an

incident back in bath Ohio uh where

there was a resistance a fighting uh a a

tying eventually tying in the

absenteeism that there's been a

correlation between drinking and

absenteeism at the job I tell you I just

I know about you but this is even though

the defendant said repeatedly he had

been drinking the doctor didn't believe

it he he he elicited that I invite you I

invite I suggest to you do you think Dr

Berlin could have done that this is an

extraordinarily competent who brought a

lot of hard work to this matter and was

able was organized he's knowledgeable

he's on that special paraphilia

subcommittee of the dsmr uh he's

knowledgeable in his field he's

practiced

this is

a I I think an exceptionally gifted

human being he talked about the

responsibility issue and on each case

then he broke it out down through the

case here's the evidence of knowing the

wrongfulness here's evidence on the

Conformity issue detailed right down

every case and I submit to you when

you're back picking out the trees in the

forest is this what is this one this

you're going to remember I submit to

you're going to recollect that Fel and

Deets talked about each case opined on

each case you will not find that you can

search till your eyes are sore your

memory you're not going to find that

about Dr Berlin who said no I see the

forest I don't need to go through the

trees I don't need to look at each tree

I submit to you you have to look at each

tree and I that was one reason why I

wanted to be very very thorough uh in

presenting my psychiatrist that they had

done exactly that that they had checked

every tree and opined on the basis of

their examination of those

trees I'd like to to talk about the

issue of control and I'm going to make

this somewhat of a mix of historical I'm

premising some of this on Dr Fel some of

it on on Dr DEET and what you've heard

let's talk about the the what's involved

here the Stephen hit

matter whatever the defendant whatever

his paraphilic interests were at that

time there was no killing until he was

this this occurred in the summer of 1978

honor about June 20th

1978 uh there was been talk about a a

jog I listened carefully and it was

clear some of the doctors thought that

that he had planned to kill the jogger

some of them thought that he had planned

to render the jogger unconscious I don't

think you can see that clearly and

either as I recall Dr Becker's notes it

sounds like the defendant told Becker

unconscience as I recall Berlin thought

it was going to be that he was going to

uh slay the man but at any rate the

first slaying takes place Stephen Hicks

in the summer of 1978 what happens after

that he finishes the summer in B Ohio

and goes for the first quarter to the

University of Ohio oh not the University

of Ohio to Ohio State we all know that

the midwestern land grant College we're

talking like Madison thousands and

thousands of young people walking about

many hundreds who must have met the

physique the interests of this defendant

and yet he doesn't slay anybody there's

no evidence of involvement in a sexual

assault the biggest thing that comes

across is a lot of drinking during that

time but no involvement no involvement

in any sexual activities he returns uh

goes into the army in in December of

1978 and goes down south the barracks

and of course to for training period

then over to Germany uh and is in

Germany for several years uh there is

evidence as Dr D threw out that he

responded to his sexual needs by

masturbating by use of pornography but

no evidence that he initiated a sexual

assault on anybody no evidence that he

killed someone to get their body no

evidence that the desire didn't continue

presumably the desire continued the

paraphilic desires but the defend contr

control them it's a period of time the

defendant controlled them did not act

them out evidence of the control control

capacities of the defender he's released

early because of drinking and and in

March of 1981 go down to Miami Florida

cins Avenue I don't know if anybody in

this jury's been on Colin but uh it's

along the beach he talks about sleeping

on the

beach Florida from March to September

must have been thousands of young men

young men walking around with the

physique that attracted him but he

doesn't kill him he does not involve

himself in the second assault any of

those individuals returns to the city of

miluk returns to Ohio in in Jan

September or so there was evidence that

the that the father brought him back up

to uh he came back up to Ohio no

evidence of an assault in Ohio from

September to December of 1981 in

December of 1981 as I recall there was

testimony that cited as December and

some testimony of ' 81 and some that

cited it as January of 82 2 he moved up

here to West Dallas to his grandmother's

house that time 1982 takes a job at the

at the plasma blood bank again the

particularity of this Dr Deets you it's

an odd thing he brings it out he he

uncovered it and tells you yes he had an

experience he drank the blood of a naked

Native American he brought that out as I

recall no other psychiatrist brought

that out a thorough man questioning well

what happened at the at the at the

plasma company and what did you do and

effective questioning and shares that

with you shares that item with you uh

and said no he didn't like it and wiped

himself off and and uh did never did it

again but a man that that feels that you

may want to know that and brings that

out to you Dr DEET as I recall he is the

only one that mentioned him and of

course he testified last wasn't as

though someone suggested it to him by

earlier testimony he testified last from

that time uh he worked at the plasma and

was there for a year and then left that

job God then there's discussion in 1983

and 1984 he's still living with the

grandmother uh he decides because falls

under the religious influences of the

grandmother and his lifestyle changes

substantially he starts dealing he says

quoted of suppressing the fantasies with

paraphilic fantasies Cuts back

substantially on Mast debating starts

going to church starts reading the Bible

this is a commitment it shows control

shows his capability of suppressing when

he wants to when he wants to suppress

ing the fantasies and suppressing other

activities he might otherwise been

pursuing we have the incident in the

library the West Ellis Library guy drops

a note in his lap uh let's come on

downstairs to the live to the bathroom

and I'll give you a [ __ ] a homosexual

type of of

proposition the defendant first shrugs

it off starts thinking about it and then

re-engages himself starts going to the

porno shops finds out about the bath

houses and the gay bars and starts

involving himself in that lifestyle

that's the defendant's choice that is

his choice and that's what he does

talked about it as a choice that he

pursued he then becomes involved in the

bath house activities uh several men

want to have anal intercourse with him

and he doesn't like it he submits to it

but doesn't like it however he likes to

meet you the opportunity to meet people

there and to experience sex there so he

takes care of it how does he take care

of it goes and lies to a doctor about

getting some sleeping drug that he needs

a drug and starts doing it you can set

the date there was testimony by

Lieutenant moer about how many pills

were bought at what times and you can

see where he was using him for the bath

house work and then you can see when

he's buying him when he's using him as a

first step in the slaying of a human

being you can see other the many many

hundreds of pills that were involved and

he himself rarely using it rarely using

it and uh the defendant then starts

drugging people at the bath houses

that's pretty pretty rotten thing to do

pretty rot whether you approve Pro of

bath houses or not that isn't the issue

in this case I suppose whether you

approve of doing that or not isn't the

issue either the issue is homicide but

it's a rather selfish thing to do come

in to say okay especially when he

doesn't like to be sexual anal sexual

intercourse drugs the guy then he does

it then he does it on him he has a close

call he said somebody uh almost dies

they got to get him out to the hospital

he appreciates the danger of the

drugging when one of the individuals has

to be taken out to the hospital uh from

the drug

event he's he's out of the bath houses

now and starts going to the hotels and

he speaks of going to two hotels and

eventually in November of 1987 he's he's

by the way when he's drugging these guys

he's not killing him there they are

they're helpless he doesn't kill him in

the bath houses and he doesn't kill him

in the hotels and then we come into

November of 1987 at The Ambassador Hotel

he's not charged with that count I don't

know what happened in that count I don't

know what happened with Mr Tomy there's

no potty left there is no Corpus deti

for Mr Mr Tomy no one can say how Tommy

died the defendant says he woke up and

uh and there was Mr Tomy with some some

chest problems dead he had drugged him

did he die from an overdose I don't know

I don't know how Tommy died but he was

his body was totally destroyed by the

defendant so there's no Corpus deti for

the Tony matter the defendant then

decides in in right at this ter time

this is November of

1987 however that's however that isn't

an issue in this case how Tomy died it's

a fact though because you want to

consider that in the psychiatric

assessment after this the defendant

decides he's not going to try anymore he

decides he's not going to try resisting

I don't know how well he's done

resisting because he's been into the

bath hous but he's not going to resist

anymore here's I say not resisting all

of us got to try till the day we die you

got to try and if it's a sexual interest

that you

have if you're drawn to the lady next

door or if you're drawn to Children down

the street or if you're drawn to

somebody you work with uh we got to try

I'm 55 and I my sexual interests haven't

stopped I'll be candid with you and do

you think I can stop controlling I don't

think so but this defendant decides he's

not going to try anymore he is not going

to try anymore what is the price of not

trying anymore not jeopardizing his

marriage that's bad enough people do

those things the price for him is first

to render people undrugged so he has

enjoys the sex and then to kill them to

continue for a couple of days of

pleasure and after that change what

happens right here he talks about it

with I think virtually all of the

psychiatrist discuss this

discussion and on we on it comes whether

it's discussed as urges or compulsion I

talked about compulsion and I'll read

this again what the paraphilia is is a

sexual urge recurrent intense sexual

urges that's what we're talking about

you've had paraphilia if if it where if

you are drawn to your wife you're single

the difference is the object it's not

I've had intense sexual urges I assume

the people in this room most of the

people in this room have had intense

recurrent sexual urges that's very

natural to have that it's a paraph

because the object is an unconscious

person or a dead person that's the

difference not something Super Hyper

sexual as Dr de said normal sexual drive

at the higher end but within the normal

range

and I'm sure there are probably people

in that in this box that maybe have are

Beyond are in the higher end of the

normal range at any rate that after this

decision what happens James doctor age

15 sorry Mr doct stator I want a couple

more hours of sexual pleasure you are

going to have to die to give me those

hours of sexual

pleasure that's what we're talking about

what this case is about so James doat

dies he doesn't have a car what's this

chopping up stuff you know it's not a

ritual he said that what's this chopping

up stuff hey that sounds strange chop

them up he doesn't have a car he already

had an experience back in bath Ohio

remember when he chopped up toomi he

stopped at 3:00 a.m. by the bath Ohio

police department they stopped they

think he's drunk it's left of center he

T he he told the psychiatrist the

officers even flashed it in see the bags

the garbage bags in the back of the car

he's had an experience hauling tomy's

body back in 19 1978 he doesn't attempt

to borrow a car to haul the body he

decides to destroy the evidence right

there and he is immensely effective at

it immensely effective acidifying

eventually his acidifying process

immensely effective at it and as I say

at the end he could have done it all

with the TIC a that he had the 57 gallon

barrel he could have wiped out all

traces of all these people and as de

told you he was thinking precisely of

doing that next to

he decided and he proceeds to do it next

Guerrero and he kills Guerrero uses the

same drugging Ronald flowers this is

very important and very interesting

Ronald flowers I think there's there's

little doubt that he intended to kill

Ronald flowers even as he had brought

home docer and Guerrero what about

neither of these men had a car flowers

had a car remember flowers testified

couldn't get his car started he was with

his friends at the the club down in the

area couldn't get his car started goes

up to the telephone he's going to make a

phone call and who approaches him the

defendant dmer they're talking oh I

can't get my car started dmer says come

on we'll grab a cab home I'll take my

car and come back and jump start you

dmer doesn't have a car to come back and

jump start him doesn't have a car what

do you think dmer had in mind to do with

you saw Mr flowers I would not wish to

confront Mr flowers when he was angry

you saw him Testify the defendant don't

come on out to my place and uh you know

we'll jump I'll get my car we'll come

back and jump start your car and out

they go to his house and of course he

drugs Mr flowers Mr flowers said as he

came in the house he heard an older

voice say is that you Jeffrey the

grandmother at any rate Mr Mr flowers is

drug and uh passes out comes to in the

hospital comes to in the hospital and

the defendant with the psychiatrist

tells what he had done that he had sex

with him that somehow or somewhere the

grandmother came along and either saw

somehow came to light that he was there

that that other man was there flowers

was there that saved Ronald flow's life

and the defend didn't proceed didn't

wait till the grandmother left the house

or what got him out of the house and

this happens in other cases where

there's some something the thing the

plan goes AR right change changes his

plan the plan was to kill it's the

stroke is underway the grandmother

apparently saw Mr flowers Mr flowers is

alive by that chance moment letter

otherwise the def and the defendant's

ability to change change the plan then

the sexual assault that transpires here

there was a 5 Monon period where the

defendant is not involved in any assault

sexual assault of ss he testified you

saw him here you were past I remind you

you were past a stipulation not

identifying him by name but you know his

particular relationship to another

victim you're aware of that SS is

invited on the street a 13-year-old boy

this was on September 26 1988 you saw

him here in court and you saw how slight

he is now and that's 2 and a half years

ago you decide yourself what he would

have looked like he invites him in this

this 13-year-old lad with a $50 offer

and proceeds to drug him too takes

pictures takes a hold of his penis takes

it out takes some photographs and slips

him the drug and the kid realizes that

that that something is ay and gets up

and leaves and dmer says no I've got to

pay and the kid goes home drug winds up

in the hospital and The Police become

involved I asked Dr Berlin what did he

intend to do to SS and he said kill him

he told Dr Becker he intended to go to

work that night and uh that he would

wasn't going to kill him because he had

to go to work that night that's what he

told Dr deeton Dr pel he was at work

that night we know that because that's

where he was arrested when the youngster

called the police Gary temp testified

the officer went out to the house after

he'd come back from the hospital some

Good Samaritan Hospital interviewed the

kid took the kid down to the apartment

building identified the the defendant's

apartment went to the manager got the

name and the work site and they went out

and arrested dmer at the West Side

Chocolate Factory at 1 or two that

morning this on the 27th of

September on this day when he was

arrested what happened there the

defendant exercised control either he

decided that he was going to go to work

and didn't want it or he decided that he

wouldn't attack this youngster because

the youngster hadn't fully gone under

the drug in either event he made that

decision sexual drive I can only

analogize it to a woman let's say but

honey I love you but I got to go to work

tonight and I'm sexual you know capacity

to control or was he didn't want to

struggle relatively slight young man he

didn't want to struggle with him

wouldn't run the risk even though it was

minutes before that drug would take

place didn't want a struggle that might

call someone's attention to what was

going on so SS by that by virtue of that

drug making it out of the house SF does

not die on 1389 there was a plea while

this case is pending the defendant is

eventually sentenced on May 23 1989 he

talks about running into sear Anthony

Sears and we like Jeff Connor testified

the man that drove the car around they

had met he said he and he was with Sears

Sears met with dmer and he gave them a

ride out notice where story dropped off

though said well they dropped off and he

gave the the intersection when officer

Yaki testified he said that intersection

was about two or three blocks from the

grandmother's house there you have

direct confir confirmation not just the

defendant and I read to you how he said

when it was a cab he always got out here

he gets out and you see the

effectiveness of that because Connor

came back and looked and they couldn't

find out remember think he said with the

sister of Sears trying to find out what

happened to Sears and was effective

being dropped off blocks away was effect

where do you look blocks away flowers

had said that too you may recall flowers

said when they Ro out in the cab what is

this you's got to walk a couple of

blocks before they get to the

grandmother's house so even the cab

driver would know what had transpired in

any event he is sentenced and I will

read in a few minutes from the

transcript of that sent but I want to

remind you in terms of control from this

period on from the the from the 25th of

March 1989 and until the 20th of 90

that's 14 months there are no more slays

no more slays during this time the

defendant serves 9 months at the house

of correction nine months of those 14

months he's at the house of correction

five months he is not at the house of

correction during that time he slays no

one he's released every day he's he's

released to go to

work control comes back he can say I'm

just overwhelmed I've got to go out get

a dead body but he doesn't do that he

does not do that on Thanksgiving day

he's out starts drinking meets a man who

and he said how psychiatrist said how he

he was drinking that night and and I

think it was that Thanksgiving and winds

up being hog tied himself with some man

putting a candle up his rear

end in an odd turn Twist of the tables

he becomes the victim of another man's

exploitation but in any event for that

14-month period 9 of which he has

released to go to work no evidence of

sexual assault control because he has

decided not to have that he mentioned

somewhere along the line he's waiting

till he gets his own apartment he gets

his own apartment so well testified as I

recall in early May the defendant gets

his own apartment on North 25th Street

during the fency of this matter he said

he after after this arrest shortly there

after he went back to the grandmother's

house then he's at the house of

Direction in early May of 1990 he gets

his aart on North 25th Street and after

that Raymond Smith is the first victim

got his own circumstances his own

Arrangement and we start through the

slangs he becomes more effective at it

let me talk a little bit some of the

things some of the pattern here of these

slangs he could stop when he wanted to

you saw the long periods when he did not

when he chose to not to engage in these

activities Dr de asked him he told Dr de

that at the time he had killed each of

these 15 victims he would have refrained

from doing so if a witness has had

entered the room the fact that DRC Mr

darmer was able to suppress his sexual

behavior other than occasional

masturbation for a prol long period of

time in 1983 and '84 when he was with

the grandmother the fact that Mr dmer

was able to satisfy his sexual desires

with masturbation at all times not full

complete but substantial satisfaction

the fact that Mr dmer did in fact

satisfy himself exclusively with

masturbation from about 1973 until the

murder of hicks in 197 78 and from that

time into the entry of the homosexual

subculture of the bath houses Etc in

other words the time he was in the

military time at Ohio State all those

periods of time he was chosing to

exercise control the fact that Mr D

prepared himself for some of the murders

by clearing spaces an apartment by

powderized tablets I've already read

from the police report about that before

going out to find a victim by drinking

by viewing pornography by viewing the

films he talked about Dr test testified

how who the psychiatrist took the time

to view the Jedi film and The Exorcist 3

film who of the

psychiatrist one psychiatrist Dr D he

knew what he was talking about when he'

showed let's see that film let's see

what portion of that film no other

psychiatrist that's what thoroughness is

when I asked you would you consider

experience and

thorus that's what thorus is show me

these films and Dr de saw those films he

was knowledgeable about them when he

formed his opinion no other psychiatrist

did Mr Bo Mr Bole started talking about

these films and what they were doing and

so on Dr de saw that Dr Berlin didn't

talk about it Dr Becker didn't talk

about it none of the other doctors

talked about it but Dr de did that's why

that's why you talk about thoroughness

you're talking about a master when you

talk these films are important enough to

Mr Bo to argue about them why didn't his

psychiatrist look at them

Dr D did to see what role or influence

they might

have the fact that Mr J J dmer generally

limited his murders to weekends when he

would have sufficient time to ad enjoy

and initiate disposal of the victim

before returning to work the fact that

Mr dmer did not kill any of the men he

was attracted to while in bars or on the

street or at the mall or the peak show

or pornographic bookstores or in the

bath houses he didn't this is Dem man

when he said he would go out if he

couldn't find a guy with a car without a

car and go back home not to he start

prowling the streets driven overwhelmed

by sexual desire prowling the streets to

get a man not the way he operated

tightly control his place get him in

drug them do it no car tightly

controlled not so you know I can't get a

man tonight I'll go out in the streets

and look in the alleys and get someone

not that that's what control is about

that's what control the to do

that the fact that Mr dmer did not kill

these men whom he found attractive and

had rendered unconscious even after

lowering his own inhibitions through

drinking where the bath house setting

would preclude readily readily escaping

detection in other words in the bath

houses where they were unconscious the

hotels up to the Tumi incident not

involved in any Flames even during these

times the posal pointed out in his

testimony from his notes discussion that

when they got backed up in Milwaukee if

there were too many he'd go down to

Chicago the Chicago bath houses and you

heard that man testify from the Chicago

bath houses brought that evidence that

he was registered down there the number

of times he went down to the Chicago

bath houses and and uh and took care of

his sexual need in that way again not

violating the law taking care of his

sexual

needs the fact that Mr dmer did not kill

many a drug unless he continued to find

them sufficiently attractive to Warrant

further steps indications particularly

from pil as I recollect deets and that

if he sobered up and didn't like these

guys that was it he didn't proceed to

kill him fact that Mr dmer reported that

after rendering each of his victims

unconscious he voluntarily drank

additional alcohol for the purpose of

overcoming his natural inhibitions

against killing them the fact that Mr

dmer did in each instance wait until the

victim was in his place of residence

under his control and behind closed

doors before killing the victim there

are no slains on the street and even uh

when I'll talk about LP in a few minutes

even Tracy Edwards he doesn't Chase

Tracy Edwards down the hall when Tracy

Edwards is outside the apartment boom

that's it not a

Pursuit and and the testimony from Fel

indicating that when he was he'd be

tired he wouldn't do it if he was

working all week he wouldn't do it if

the person would have cooperated with

him and stayed this is what happened to

Weinberger Weinberger is a guy brought

up from Chicago for two days the guy

stay for the first day doesn't hurt him

the second day he drills him cu wine

Burger starts talking about going home

so it's not the first day he delays it

and he prefers he's indicated he prefers

them alive and compliant and again as

I've said before which to me is that the

guy doesn't own a car that's that to me

is a well that that you can see the

control that he exercised throughout

this is not a man ravenously searching

about and even when he when it started

to step up in terms of his own of his

slayings he doesn't vary from that he

doesn't attack anybody on the street

he he continues let let me speak at this

time also to the flowers case I talked

to that to some extent you can see where

he decided that he would not proceed

with flowers the SS case that's the lad

13 uh by the way after he was arrested

you heard tempy and shaper I talked

about citizens lay Witnesses testifying

uh that that he seemed rational and so

on officer tempy testified he was

involved in two incidences with him uh

the incident at the uh the arrest the