“Why did you order physical and neurological exams?”
“Because mental disturbance can result from brain damage or physical defects of the brain.”
“And was there brain damage?”
“There is no evident physical brain disease.”
“And the IQ test?”
“To determine the intelligence level of the patient.”
“What is Aaron Stampler’s IQ?”
“Between 138 and 140. Genius level.”
“Did you perform any other tests?”
“Most of our testing was in the realm of interrogation of the subject, Stampler. What you would call therapy.”
“And all three of you worked together and separately in this analysis?”
“That is correct. Myself, and doctors Ciaffo and Solomon on behalf of the state. We jointly prepared our report.”
“And what is your conclusion?”
“That Aaron Stampler is not suffering from any serious mental disorder.”
“Did you find any evidence of what is known as fugue or temporary amnesia?”
“No ma’am. Nor was he observed to suffer any evidence of fugue by the orderlies.”
“Capable of standing trial?”
“Absolutely. In fact, we found him quite normal.”
“And he understands the charges that have been brought against him, does he not?”
“Excuse me, Your Honor, if she wants to lead the witness she should get a leash,” Vail said.
Shoat glared down at him. “Is that in the nature of an objection, Counselor?”
“It’s an objection, yes.”
“I’ll rephrase, Your Honor,” Venable said, and smiled at the jury. “Does Mr. Stampler understand the charges that have been brought against him by the people?”
“Yes he does.”
“Thank you, Doctor. No further questions at this time.”
Bang, just like that. Short and sweet. Almost too casual. Okay, Doc, time for a little damage control. Vail walked to the witness box and laid his arm on the railing. Friendly, unthreatening. Just Vail and the bear having a friendly chat.
“Dr. Bascott,” Vail began, “would you please explain schizophrenia to the jury.”
“Well, schizophrenia is the most common of the psychoses. About… two percent of all the people in Western countries are treated for schizophrenia at some time in their lives. And, of course, many schizophrenics never receive clinical attention at all.”
“What are we talking about in actual numbers here?”
“Hmm. Maybe … half of the inpatients in mental hospitals in the United States.”
“That prevalent?”
“Yes.”
“And what exactly is schizophrenia?”
“It’s the collapse or erosion of the boundaries between the ego, which controls your everyday thoughts and actions, and the id, which is the repository for all suppressed thoughts and actions. When that happens, the subject’s repressions are released and the result is a kind of mental chaos.”
“How exactly does that manifest?”
“He or she can become dysfunctional. The symptoms include hallucinations, spatial disorientation, delusions, thought and personality disorders.”
“Delusions?”
“Delusions are false beliefs that are usually absurd and bizarre.”
“In lay terms, what exactly does that mean?”
“In the extreme, a patient might believe he or she is being persecuted by others. They may believe they are important historical personalities, even someone who is dead. Or they can even believe that a machine controls their thinking. I had a case in which a woman thought that her mind was controlled by her toaster. She would sit for hours, talking to a toaster, taking orders from it.”
A ripple of laughter swept across the room. Shoat smacked his gavel and it ended abruptly.
“So this kind of bizarre behavior is not uncommon, is that correct?”
“It’s relative.”
“Within the context of a mental institution?”
“Not uncommon at all.”
“And there are different kinds … different categories of schizophrenia?”
“Oh yes, many of them.”
“Tell me about genetics, Doctor. Does genetics figure into this? Does schizophrenia tend to run in families?”
“Well, yes, to varying degrees.”
“In fact, Doctor, isn’t it true that about twelve percent of all schizoids are the children of one schizophrenic parent and about forty-five percent have two schizophrenic parents?”
“I am not sure of percentages, but that sounds generally correct. It is a significant sample.”
“So schizophrenia can be either genetic or caused by environmental or sociological factors, is that correct?”
“Yes. Usually a combination of all three.”
“Are you familiar with Aaron Stampler’s hometown: Crikside, Kentucky?”
“It has been described to me, sir.”
“You haven’t been there?”
“No, I have not.”
“From what you understand, Doctor, is it possible that environmental factors in Crikside might contribute to schizophrenia?”
Venable stood up. “Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. And what is the relevance of this testimony?”
“Your Honor, we’re dealing with a homicide which we contend is the result of a specific mental disorder. I’m simply laying groundwork here.”
“Are we going to get a course in psychiatry, too?” Venable snarled.
“Is that an objection?” Vail asked.
“If you like,” she answered.
“Excuse me,” Shoat said, his voice tinged with annoyance. “Would you like a recess so you can carry on this private discussion, or would you two like to address the court?”
“Sorry, Judge,” Vail answered. “We contend that the study and determination of mental disorders is somewhat ambiguous in certain areas, particularly where it concerns differing theories. Freud and Jung, for instance, are not entirely compatible. What we are trying to do is determine where the good doctor and the defense are in concert so we can proceed along those lines. If there are areas in which we disagree, they should be resolved before we go any further. What I am saying is, we do not challenge Dr. Bascott’s expertise but we do question whether his theories are compatible with ours.”
“Your Honor,” Venable said with acid in her tone. “Mr. Vail is creating a forum for a discussion of various psychiatric theories here and I object to that.”
“I just want to find a common ground for the whole Q and A on psychiatric theory. Dr. Bascott may believe one theory; Dr. Arrington may believe another. If that happens, we must bring in other experts to resolve the differences. Unless, of course, we can put aside those problems now.”
“Only as it pertains to this case,” countered Venable. “I object on the grounds that this line of questioning is too broad. We should cross those bridges when we come to them. It isn’t a debate.”
“I tend to agree with the prosecutor on this,” Shoat said. “If there is a specific area of disagreement, then I will permit introduction of witnesses supporting one theory or the other. But I will not open the court to a debate. Objection sustained.”
“Okay,” Vail said. “Doctor, are you familiar with Jung’s theory that the unconscious can be reached only through the use of symbols? That symbols are the universal language, the primitive expressions of the unconscious?”
“Yes, I am.”
“Do you agree with that theory?”
“In part.”
“So you disagree?”
“Objection,” Venable jumped in. “Dr. Bascott answered the question.”
“No, Your Honor,” Vail disagreed. “He said, ‘In part.’”
“Perhaps I can explain,” Bascott offered. “I also believe that dreams are a window to the subconscious. I do not think these two theories are incompatible. We would not rule out any accepted theory in making a
diagnosis.”
“Didn’t Paul Tillich say, ‘Symbolic language alone can express the ultimate’?”
“Yes, but that still does not preclude the use of dream analysis in determining mental dysfunction,” Bascott said.
“Did you use dream analysis?”
“Mr. Stampler claims he does not dream.”
“He claims he never dreams?”
“To be more precise, he does not remember them.”
“Is that uncommon?”
“Not particularly.”
“How about hypnosis?”
“We tried. Stampler was a poor subject.”
“Is that uncommon?”
“No … some people just subconsciously resist hypnosis.”
“You do not consider that odd or out of the ordinary?”
“Not really. No.”
“So your analysis of the defendant is based solely on interviews with him, is that correct?”
“No, we talked to some people in his hometown. People he lived with at Savior House and at work.”
“How much credence did you put on the interviews with the people in Crikside, Kentucky? That is Aaron’s hometown, is it not?”
“Yes, it is. These were telephone interviews. Largely informational.”
“Did you conduct them?”
“Some of them. I talked with his former teacher, uh …”
“Rebecca Kramer?”
“Yes. Kramer.”
“And what did she tell you?”
“That he was an excellent student. Somewhat of a loner. That he aspired to much more than that area had to offer.”
“Bad tempered? Angry? Violent?”
“No, none of those.”
“Did you discuss his sexual orientation?”
“Objection, Your Honor. Relevance?”
“If I may have a little latitude, here, Judge, I think it will be apparent.”
“All right, Counselor, I’ll give you a little room here, but don’t get lost on us.”
“Yes sir. Doctor, did you discuss his sexual orientation?”
“We didn’t question her about that.”
“Why not?”
“It hardly seemed appropriate. She was just his teacher, after all.”
“I see. I want to talk about Aaron’s religious orientation for a moment. Are you familiar with the defendant’s relationship with a Reverend Shackles?”
“Yes. Josiah Shackles.”
“Did you interview Shackles?”
“No sir. We were informed that nobody has seen or heard from him in years.”
“What do you know about him?”
“Apparently he was a Fundamentalist, basically, but he had very severe attitudes about sin.”
“Did the defendant discuss this with you?”
“Yes, he did. We also had your interview with him in the jail.”
“What was your analysis of that relationship?”
“Unfortunate.”
“Why?”
“As I said, Reverend Shackles was a Fundamentalist. From what I understand, he believed once you are tainted with sin, there is no redemption.”
“In other words, he believed in abstinence from all sin?”
“Yes.”
“How about prayer?”
“As I recall, Aaron quoted Virgil on that. He said that Shackles believed what Virgil wrote.”
“Which was?”
“May I refer to my notes?”
“Of course.”
Bascott leafed through several pages of a black notebook before stopping. “Here it is,” Bascott said. “Quote: ‘Cease to think that the decrees of the Gods can be changed by prayers.’ Unquote.”
“Shackles believed that, right?”
“According to Aaron.”
“Did Aaron accept that thesis?”
“Well, he was a child at the time. Eight, nine years old. Naturally it impressed him.”
“Did he believe it?”
“Objection, Your Honor,” said Venable. “The defendant would be the best source for that information.”
“Except the defendant does not have to testify,” said Vail. “In which case I believe the state’s witness would certainly be the best source. After all, he and his team are responsible for determining that Stampler is sane. And this information will be corroborated in defense interviews conducted by Dr. Arrington.”
“Overruled,” Shoat said. “Continue, Counselor.”
“Did Aaron believe Shackles when he said there is no absolution on earth for sin?”
“I think it had an effect on his religious outlook.”
“Do you believe it? That there is no absolution on this earth?”
“Objection. Immaterial.”
“On the contrary, Your Honor. The doctor’s viewpoint is quite material in analyzing this information.”
“Overruled,” Shoat said, looking at Venable and raising his eyebrows.
“Well, it would seem to nullify the basic premise of Christianity,” Bascott said.
“I asked if you believed it,” Vail pressed.
“No.”
“So you believe in absolution?”
“Well, I… Not really. I, uh … I’m an atheist.”
His answer caught Venable completely off-guard. Suddenly it became obvious that Vail was trying to taint Bascott in the eyes of a jury that was comprised of devout Christians.
“Objection,” she roared. “The doctor’s religious beliefs are immaterial!”
“He said it, I didn’t,” Vail said with a shrug. “Okay with me if you strike it.” He smiled at the jury as he returned to the desk and picked up a legal pad. “The point is, Doctor, that Aaron Stampler was definitely affected by his exposure to Shackles, was he not?”
“Yes.”
“So his original religious orientation was somewhat distorted.”
“Unless you agree with Shackles.”
“Did Aaron change his mind about that?”
“Yes. Years later he was studying to be a Catholic with Bishop Rushman. The Catholic viewpoint, of course, is exactly the opposite.”
“So his religious message was mixed, correct?”
“Absolutely.”
“Is religion important to Aaron?”
“Well, he talks about it a lot. Yes, I think so. But I think the bishop helped him to resolve the conflict.”
“So the bishop convinced him that there is absolution on this earth?”
“I believe Aaron when he says that, yes.”
Vail flipped through his legal pad. “Doctor, in your third interview with Aaron, page seven, there is this exchange:
“Bascott: So you believe in absolution then?
“Stampler: Well, the bishop was very convincing about that. But Ambrose Bierce wrote, ‘To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner is unworthy.’ And absolution comes through prayer.
“Bascott: So you still have doubts?
“Stampler: Well, I do think about it, sir.”
Vail dropped the tablet on the desk.
“Now, Doctor, don’t you see a conflict present there?”
“Because he thinks about it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a conflict. We’re talking about a very intelligent young man. He asks a lot of questions.”
“So is it your opinion that this conflict did not cause any stress in the defendant?”
“It did not appear significant to the team.”
“Is it not true, Doctor, that a large percentage of mental diseases can be attributable to religious and sexual disorientation?”
“I suppose you could say that.”
“It is not true, Doctor, that more than fifty percent of cases involving schizophrenia are attributable to these two factors-sex and religion?”
“I believe that’s fairly accurate, yes.”
“So if Aaron Stampler received, let’s say, divergent religious and sexual signals from Shackles and Rushman, this very likely would create the environment in w
hich schizophrenia thrives?”
“Well, I suppose you could say that. ‘Thrives’ might be a bit strong…”
“Fifty percent of all cases …?”
“Well, hmm, yes, I guess I would have to agree with that.”
“But you didn’t consider this radical difference in religious messages to him as significant?”
“We did not see any effect,” Bascott said. “Therefore we didn’t look for a cause.”
“I see.” Pretty good answer, Vail thought. “Dr. Bascott, was there ever a time when you had reason to believe that Aaron Stampler’s mother suffered from schizophrenia?”
Venable’s antenna went up. Where the hell’s he heading now? she wondered. Well, all the phone interviews were borderline hearsay—if he gets too far out of line. She focused on Vail’s interrogation.
“Not… really,” Bascott answered.
“Did you talk to anyone else in Crikside? I mean, did you personally talk to anyone else?”
“Objection, Your Honor. This is all hearsay.”
“All his testimony pertaining to Crikside is hearsay, Judge,” Vail said, holding his hands out at his sides. “If he considered this information in his analysis, then we feel it’s pertinent and open to cross.”
“All right, I’ll let you go on, but tread carefully, Mr. Vail. Restate the question, Ms. Blanchard.”
“ ‘Did you talk to anyone else in Crikside? I mean, did you personally talk to anyone else?’”
“Yes,” Bascott answered. “Her doctor.”
“That would be Dr.… Charles Koswalski?”
“Yes.”
“And what did he tell you about Aaron’s mother?”
Bascott chuckled. “He said that she was lonely-crazed.”
The courtroom erupted in laughter, prompting Shoat to again gavel them quiet.
“Lonely-crazed?” Vail asked. “Is that a specific mental disorder, Doctor?”
“I’m afraid not, sir.”
“What did he mean?”
“Her husband and oldest son were both dead, and when Aaron left she became eccentric.”
“Eccentric?”
“Yes.”
“Is that how he described her? Eccentric?”
“Not in so many words.”
“I refer to my notes, Doctor. Did he describe her as ‘crazy as a full moon dog’?”
More laughter from the gallery. Shoat glared out at the audience and this time they quieted down without the gavel.
“I believe that’s the expression he used.”