Conversely, however, such individuals experience "a remarkably intense envy of other people who seem to have things they do not have, or who simply seem to enjoy their lives."
Such a "devalued concept of self," Kernberg has observed, "can be seen especially in narcissistic patients who divide the world into famous, rich and great people on the one hand, and the despicable, worthless 'mediocrity,' on the other. Such patients are afraid of not belonging to the company of the great, rich and powerful, and of belonging instead to the 'mediocre,' by which they mean worthless and despicable, rather than 'average' in the ordinary sense of the term.
"Narcissistic patients," Kernberg continues, possess an "overriding necessity to feel great and important in order to cancel feelings of worthlessness and devaluation. At the very bottom of this dichotomy lies a still deeper image of the relationship with external objects, precisely the one against which the patient has erected all these other pathological structures. It is the image of an enraged, empty self—the hungry wolf out to kill, eat and survive—full of impotent anger at being frustrated, and fearful of a world—devoid of food and love—which seems as hateful and revengeful as the patient himself."
Kernberg cites the case of one patient who "fell in love with a woman whom he considered very beautiful, gifted, warm; in short, completely satisfying. He had a brief period of awareness of how much he hated her for being so perfect, just before she responded to him and decided to marry him. After their marriage, he felt bored with her and became completely indifferent toward her. . . . After that, the patient gradually developed strong hatred toward her for having all that he felt he did not have."
One evening at Terminal Island, MacDonald gave me a letter which he had just received from his brother.
At the risk of losing your eternal friendship, I am going to ask you point blank if you killed your wife & daughters, and if you don't want to answer the question then it's still all right with me, but the question is one that has been gnawing at me since 1971 & I feel that at least to ask the question would be to unburden my mind, but then of course I immediately lose your respect by even thinking of asking the question, but since you think that I have a mental problem, I think that one way of me helping myself is to unload those questions which I know have been bothering me.
(I have to assume that the answer is "No, I did not kill my wife or either of my daughters," and if such is the case then I can rest assuredly, but then the problem is, why are you there? If you're not guilty, then you don't belong in jail. If you don't belong in jail and are in jail then something is terribly wrong. If something is wrong, what & why, & how can we remedy the situation?)
I'm sorry to even consider asking the question, but since 1970 I've been answering questions from many people & I've always asked them—"Have you ever asked him (you)—did you kill your wife and/or daughters?" and no one ever said that they had asked you, so if anyone ever asks me again, I can say, "Yes, I asked him and he said":
Yes
No
Fifth Amendment
Other
e) (You fill it in.)
Jay had enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for reply, but Jeff told me that of course he had no intention of replying. Laughing, he said this was just one more example of how mentally disturbed his brother continued to be.
Kernberg has found that the narcissist's "haughty, grandoise and controlling behavior—particularly, the excessive demand-ingness, the arrogant, and exploitative relationships these patients develop with women—is a defense against... the projection of rage."
Under most circumstances, Kernberg makes clear, "narcissistic character defenses protect the patient against the intensity of his rage." And, because of the narcissist's "superficially smooth and effective social adaptation, the serious distortion in his internal relationship with other people—may come as a real surprise."
Indeed, it has been Kernberg's observation that "the transformation of a previously bland, mostly indifferent, apparently well controlled narcissistic personality into an openly raging person may be quite striking." He notes also, however, that
"aggressive outbursts—quick flareups and subsequent dispersal of emotion—" do occur, particularly under conditions when the narcissist feels "superior to or in control of those against whom [his] rage is directed."
At the condominium, I came across an article entitled "Dangerousness, Diagnosis and Disposition," written in 1968 by a Philadelphia psychiatrist named Melvin S. Heller and presented to a conference of trial judges. There was nothing to indicate why MacDonald had acquired a copy of the article or why he had retained it for so long, but certain passages did not seem entirely irrelevant.
"Violence may be meted out in a controlled, measured fashion," Dr. Heller wrote, "or in an uncontrolled blind rage, in which event the instinctual discharge of primitive aggressive impulses is prominent." Further on, calling attention to man's "genius for deception," he stated: "In view of man's capacity for inappropriate and unexpected violence, especially when planned behind the camouflage of smiles and flattery, the prognosis of dangerousness . . . requires sophisticated judgment, clinical experience, and an intimate knowledge of the individual and his milieu. . . ."
I then found the one document which, during trial, Bernie Segal had not permitted me to see: the report of the prosecution psychiatric team, based upon their examination of MacDonald in August. Though he had not permitted psychiatric testimony at the trial, Judge Dupree had made reference to this report in his denial of bail, writing that it "tends to indicate that the defendant does indeed possess those traits of character which are consistent with his commission of the crimes with which he is charged and that he possesses other traits which tend to cast serious doubt on the credibility of his explanation of how the crimes occurred."
Their first look at the report had left Segal shaken and MacDonald angrier than he had been at any other time during the trial. Reading it now, three months later, with the sun shimmering on the water beyond the sliding glass doors, I could see why.
The report, signed by the examing psychologist, Hirsch Lazaar Silverman of South Orange, New Jersey, began by describing MacDonald as "a man unhappily confused about his own masculinity," and said, "His thought processes are distinctly marked with unconscious feelings of considerable inadequacy, in great part consciously and deliberately concealed by a facade of assertiveness, which he confuses with manliness."
It said, "There seems to be an absence in him of deep emotional response, coupled with an inability to profit from experience. He is the kind of individual who is subject to committing asocial acts with impunity. He lacks a sense of guilt, he seems bereft of a strong conscience, and he appears incapable of emotionally close or mutually cooperative relationships with women.
"Derivatively, he apparently avoided, even resented, the demands on him to fulfill the responsibilities of having been a husband and a father of female children. Parenthood, for him, may have been viewed as threatening and potentially destructive."
The report also said, "He is subject to being amnesic concerning what he would wish to blot out from his consciousness and very conscience. His credibility leaves much to be desired. In testing, he proved himself to be considerably pathological and impulsive, with feministic characteristics and concealed anger. He has a disdain for others with whom he differs and he is subject to respond with anger when his person is questioned, on whatever basis.
"He handles his conflicts by denying that they even exist. He is not in touch with his feelings and essentially is not comfortable with himself. He has only an authoritarian image of himself as the machismo type of male.
"In terms of mental health and personality functioning, he is either an overt or a repressed sexual invert characterized by expansive egotism and delusions of persecution. He is preoccupied with the irrelevant and is unable to face reality. To suit his whims, he has the faculty to manufacture and convolute circumstances. He seeks attention and approval and is given to den
ial of truth."
The report continued: "The inanimate movement responses in his Rorschach indicate latent homosexuality approaching homosexual panic; and the depreciated female contents in his projections suggest more than a possibility of homosexuality, latent or otherwise. The animal content in the Rorschach further indicates homocidal tendencies."
In summary, the report stated: "Dr. MacDonald may well be viewed as a psychopath subject to violence under pressure, rather effeminate as an individual and given to overt behavior when faced with emotional stress. There is also, however, unclear, a fear in him of what he is subject to do with his hands. . . .
"In essence, Dr. MacDonald is in need of continuous, consistent, psychotherapeutic intervention, coupled with psychiatric attention."
Kernberg has found narcissistic patients to be filled with "intense hatred and fear of the image of a dangerous, aggressive mother," a fear which, he says, "represents a projection of his own aggression, linked to the rage caused by his frustration by mother."
The narcissist's "ideal concept of himself," Kernberg writes, "is a fantasy construction which protects him from such dreaded relationships with all other people . . . and also contains a helpless yearning and love for an ideal mother who would come to his rescue."
Should such a "dreaded relationship" (such as marriage) materialize, the complex defense mechanism which has been constructed within the psyche of the pathological narcissist would come under severe stress, because, as Christopher Lasch notes, such a person perceives the female, "child or woman, wife or mother," as a monster who "cuts men to ribbons or swallows them whole."
Thus, in Lasch's view, "fear of the devouring mother of the pre-Oedipal fantasy gives rise to a generalized fear of women," and this fear, "closely associated with a fear of the consuming desires within, reveals itself ... as a boundless rage against the female sex."
On the afternoon of April 6, 1970, Grebner and Ivory and Shaw were questioning MacDonald about a white terry-cloth bathrobe which had been found with blades of grass adhering to the bottom—as if someone had worn it outdoors when the grass was wet and had, perhaps, squatted briefly to place a paring knife and an icepick side by side beneath a bush.
"Did you put on that terry-robe at any point in the evening?"
"No."
"Did you ever wear it outside?"
"The robe?"
"Yes."
"Well, maybe to run to get something off the line, you know, or pick up—pick up the paper every morning, but not specifically, no. Now sometimes, you know, maybe the—the kids would dress up in those things and go outdoors and play for a minute, but that was considered good stuff and my mother—my mother, that's a Freudian slip—my wife would have, you know, called them back in and taken it off.''
A Freudian slip. Not dissimilar, perhaps, from the other unconscious errors he had made during the April 6 interview, when, three times, he had said "bed" instead of "couch" in describing where his struggle against the intruders had taken place.
* * *
On my last day at the condominium, I found more pages of notes in Jeffrey MacDonald's handwriting. The heading said, "Activities—Monday, 16 Feb. 5:30 P.M.—Tues. in Hospital, 17 Feb."
This, too, was part of the detailed account which MacDonald had prepared at the request of his military attorney immediately after the April 6 announcement that he was being held as a suspect. The account which, he had told Victor Woerheide at the grand jury, he had put in writing because the events were too painful for him to talk about. This, he had told Woerheide, was the most accurate, most complete, most coherent account of the night of the murders which he had ever compiled. He had not, however, made it available to Woerheide or to the grand jurors. He had not made it available to any investigator. He had given it to his lawyers for their use—not knowing, at the time, what the evidence against him might consist of—and, once it became clear, during the Article 32 hearing, that certain avenues were not to be pursued, this "most accurate" account had lain at the bottom of a cardboard box, covered by dozens of other files.
With the warm Southern California sun of late November shining brightly through the sliding glass doors, I started to read:
We ate dinner together at 5:45 P.M. (all 4). It is possible I had 1 diet pill at this time. I do not remember, but it is possible. I had been running a weight control program for my unit and I put my name at the top of the program to encourage participation. I had lost 12-15 lbs. in the prior 3-4 weeks, in the process using 3-5 capsules of Eskatrol Spansule (15 mg. Dextroamphetamine) ("Speed") and 7.5 mg. Prochlorperazine (Compazine) to counteract the excitability of the speed. I was also losing weight because I was working out with the boxing team and the coach told me to lose weight. In any case, the reason I could have taken the pill was two-fold—1) to eat less in the evening when I 'snacked' the most and 2) to try to stay awake after dinner since I was baby-sitting. It didn't work if I did take a pill, because I think I had a half hr. nap on the floor from 7:30-8 P.M. after I put Kristy to bed. ...
The CID knows nothing about the possible diet pill. ... If I did take the pill, it is conceivable that my urine and blood 11:30 A.M. Tues. would still have some residue. We would have to research the breakdown and excretion of what was in the pill. We would also have to find out if the excretion products are definitely different than normal breakdown products of adrenaline from the body, which would be increased in the excitement of the attack, etc. Right now, I don't know if it is definitely possible to identify Dextroamphetamine from pills in the blood and the urine. I think I told the CID the only pills I usually took were aspirin, occas, cold pills, and Tetracycline (anti-biotic). ... Dr. Henry Ashton, now living in Salt Lake City, Utah, was the group surgeon before I arrived in Sept. 1969. If he remembers, he can testify that the bottle of Eskatrol from my house (with only a few missing) was left in the desk I took over when he left. If necessary, we can then contact the Smith Kline & French representative near here who can testify I never received another large bottle of sample Eskatrol. He did give me some small sample bottles for use in the weight control program. Colette had some diet pills of her own (used before she was pregnant). I think I threw them all out because they made her nervous, but possibly there was an old container left in the medicine cabinet. ...
Having received a report from the Fort Gordon laboratory that an analysis of Jeffrey MacDonald's blood—made from a sample taken at 11:40 A.M. on February 17—"did not reveal the presence of any dangerous drugs or narcotics," Franz Joseph Grebner and all subsequent investigators had simply assumed, with some justification, that Jeffrey MacDonald's drug consumption had not been a factor in the commission of the murders.
An examination I made subsequently of the laboratory notes compiled by the Fort Gordon chemist who had actually performed the tests on MacDonald's blood, however, revealed that no attempt was ever made to determine from the sample whether Jeffrey MacDonald, in the hours or days that had immediately preceded the murders, had been ingesting amphetamines. The chemist had never been instructed to test for the presence of amphetamines, and, in fact, the equipment available at the CID laboratory at the time would not have enabled him to do so. In 1970 these drugs were widely prescribed and were consumed in considerable quantity not only by individuals attempting to lose weight, but by students, truck drivers—and physicians—who found it necessary to remain awake and alert for extended periods of time. In 1970, amphetamines were not considered a "dangerous" drug by military authorities attempting to combat a dramatic upsurge in the use both of hallucinogens and of opiates such as heroin and chiefly concerned with the widespread use of marijuana.
Ten years later, however, the potential hazards associated with
Eskatrol consumption had received considerably wider attention. The drug is listed in Pills That Don't Work, the 1981 book by Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D., and Christopher M. Coley that is described on its cover as, "A consumers' and doctors' guide to over 600 prescription drugs that lack evidence of effectiveness."
/>
Wolfe and Coley describe the drug as "not only ineffective but also dangerous ... To use a combination of an 'upper' and a 'downer' both of which carry significant risks is asking for trouble." Among the possible side effects listed are: "Insomnia . . . restlessness, nervousness and dizziness." The authors also state that "psychosis (insanity) may occur with large doses."
Eskatrol is described in even more detail in the Physicians' Desk Reference, a standard medical reference book published by Medical Economics Company.
"Amphetamines have a significant potential for abuse," this text states. "In view of their short-term anorectic effect and rapid development of tolerance, they should be used with extreme caution and only for limited periods of time in weight-reduction programs."
According to his own notes—the notes which Victor Woerheide had asked him to provide to the grand jury but which he had declined to do; the notes which had lain in the bottom of a file drawer since 1970 when MacDonald had learned that CID testing had failed to discover the presence of amphetamines in his blood—MacDonald had lost twelve to fifteen pounds in the three to four weeks preceding the murders.
That was a lot of weight to lose for an already fit, twenty-six-year-old Green Beret officer, fresh from paratroop training at Fort Benning. And boxing would not account for it: his last workout with the boxing team had come more than three weeks before the killings. Neither would an odd hour of basketball late on a rainy afternoon produce that sort of weight loss. And there had been nothing to suggest that MacDonald had embarked upon a formal diet. (Indeed, he'd been eating cookies with Ron Harrison on the night of Valentine's Day and drinking a sweet liqueur with his wife two nights later, and—he had said—one of the most appealing features of Hamlet Hospital was that the nurses served him steak for breakfast.)