Primal Fear (34 page)

Vail smiled and bowed slightly. “Thank you very much,” he said, and returned to his desk.

“All right, Ms. Venable,” said Shoat, “you may call the state’s first witness.”

“The people call Dr. Harcourt Bascott.”

THIRTY-TWO

Venable seemed uncomfortably confident. Vail had already figured her first witness would be Dr. Bascott, head of the state mental health institute. She would establish his credentials, limit her examination to establishing Aaron’s sanity, and that would be that. Short and sweet, straight to the point. She’d make it seem cut-and-dried. Aaron was as normal as the boy next door—just a little psychopathic, that’s all. Likes to carve up bishops when there’s nothing good on at the movies.

Dressed conservatively in a dark blue suit, Bascott was an imposing man, six-two or six-three, in his early fifties, with long flowing white hair and soft brown eyes, who balanced his potentially intimidating size with an uncommonly soft voice and a gentle nature.
Crowd pleaser,
thought Vail.
Instant father figure, this bear of a man. The jury loves him.
It would be dangerous to destroy him. Vail would have to tread carefully in discrediting him.

“You are Dr. Harcourt D. Bascott?” Venable began.

“That’s correct,” he answered with a comforting smile.

“Are you a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state?”

“Yes I am, and in six other states.”

“Where do you live, Doctor?”

“I have a home on the grounds of the state mental health facility in Daisyland.”

“And what is your specialty?”

“I am a licensed psychiatrist.”

“And where are you employed?”

“I am director of the Stevenson Mental Health Institute and chief of the state’s mental health department. I am also a professor of psychiatry at the state university.”

“And how long have you been a specialist in this field?”

“Since 1964.”

“Please tell the court where you attended college, Doctor.”

“I have a bachelor’s degree from Reed College in Portland, Oregon, my M.D. degree from the University of Oregon Medical School, and I took my psychiatric training at the University of Cincinnati.”

“And do you have an opportunity to treat patients?”

“Oh yes.”

“How many mentally ill patients do you treat or see annually, Dr. Bascott?”

“I supervise and oversee the treatment of probably five hundred to eight hundred patients confined in various state institutions and my consultive arrangement with the state permits me to treat another seven to eight hundred patients a year.”

“All right, sir, how many … Have you written any books or papers in this field?”

“I’m the author of nine books in the field of psychiatry and over two hundred scientific articles in the field.”

“And in your practice, sir, do you treat people who would generally be considered criminally insane?”

“Yes, frequently.”

“And in this capacity were you called upon to diagnose Aaron Stampler?”

“I was head of a team of three psychiatrists assigned to examine Mr. Stampler.”

“And can you identify Mr. Stampler?”

“Yes. He’s sitting over there. The young man in the tweed jacket.”

“Now Doctor, you say you were head of a team who examined Mr. Stampler. Can you briefly describe the procedure you followed?”

“Of course. Doctors Ciaffo, Solomon and myself each conducted individual and extensive evaluations of the patient. Then we had three joint meetings with him.”

“And would you consider this a normal procedure?”

“Yes, the three of us frequently are called upon to make psychological evaluations of patients.”

“And did you also examine hospital and medical records pertaining to Mr. Stampler?”

“No. There were none available.”

“Now Doctor, just to help the jury, I would like to explore
some basic psychiatric principles. Is it true that mental disorders are classified as a disease?”

“Yes.”

“The study and treatment of medical disorders is a recognized and accepted branch of medicine, is it not?”

“Yes, it is.”

“And you diagnose mental disease just as you would a physical ailment?”

“More or less. The techniques are different but the methods are similar.”

“Doctor, will you please explain to the jury how you diagnose a mental disease?”

“We look for the most significant symptoms and assign these to a category, much the same as a medical doctor.”

“And these categories are described in a manual known as DSM3, are they not?”

“Yes.”

“What is DSM3, Doctor?”

“The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
or DSM3 for short. The American Psychiatric Association publishes it.”

“And this is the so-called bible of psychiatry, is it not?”

“Yes.”

“And did you so diagnose Aaron Stampler?”

“Yes. The team conducted all the usual tests.”

“Were any other tests administered?”

“Yes, he was given physical and neurological tests as well as an IQ test.”

“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.”