The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience (9 page)

John Wilkes got off to a rather stilted beginning in terms of his acting career. His initial forays were plagued by stage fright, an inability to recollect his lines, and clumsiness. John Wilkes Booth originally used his middle name as his last name in order not to tarnish his family’s name as he tried to get his feet under him onstage and not to rely on his father’s and brother’s fame to jump-start his career.

Booth persevered and eventually became a star actor. He reportedly made over $20,000 a year in the 1860s, roughly $500,000 in today’s currency, which placed him in the top 1 percent of all wage earners of his day. It was common back then for audiences to throw fruit, drinks, and even rocks at actors when they made mistakes. In some venues, it was not uncommon for rowdy members of the audience to fire guns in the general direction of a flailing thespian. Indeed, Edwin Booth describes in his autobiography such occurrences while he was touring California during the Gold Rush. The mood of the crowd could quickly turn sour if the entertainment their hard-earned money paid for was lackluster. John Wilkes Booth learned to adapt and eventually thrive in this environment.

John Wilkes was something of a playboy. He described himself as arrogant. And we have to consider whether part of his motivation for murdering President Lincoln was an attempt to gain even more fame, as some historians have suggested. But most historians believe it was Booth’s entrenched political beliefs that drove him to shoot Abraham Lincoln. He saw himself as a Confederate soldier, deeply dedicated to his cause, and believed that Lincoln was a tyrant who must be executed. He believed that the death of the president could be used to leverage the resurgence of the Confederacy. The only recognition he seemed to seek from his political crime, which he perceived as an act of war, was the approbation of his fellow countrymen.
Moreover, John Wilkes does not appear to have an inflated sense of his self-worth. He was able to achieve, through hard work and practice, a sizable following in the theater. He maintained a close group of friends and family. His score on this item is moderate, at best a 1.

Guiteau, on the other hand, felt that menial work was beneath him. His former wife reported that he looked down upon people who did such work. He believed he should be a published author, but he failed to put in the time and effort in his writing, instead plagiarizing text from others. As an orator, he enjoyed the crowd’s attention but copied his religious speeches from others. He dreamed of marrying rich, traveling the world, and living the high life, even though he had no reasonable plans to acquire such wealth. His former wife noted that:

A note found in his pocket when he was arrested for shooting President Garfield provides additional evidence of this trait:

A search of Guiteau’s home following his arrest revealed numerous letters; one letter was to Vice President Chester A. Arthur (who succeeded President Garfield upon his death) in which Guiteau made recommendations for selecting members of his new cabinet.

A morbid follower offered to pay $1,000 for Guiteau’s body following his execution. Guiteau replied, “I think I ought to bring more than that.… Perhaps some other fellow will offer $2000, then I can pay my debts, and if I get a new trial, that miserable Corkhill can’t bring on a lot of fellows just to swear how much I owe them.” The prosecutor, Corkhill, had subpoenaed numerous individuals who testified that Guiteau owed them money.

During his time in jail, Guiteau dictated his autobiography. The man who took the notes in shorthand referred to Guiteau’s vanity as “literally nauseating.”

And, of course, Guiteau wanted to represent himself at trial. In my clinical experience with prisoners, many psychopaths are so grandiose that they feel they can do a better job defending themselves than an experienced lawyer could, despite the fact that most of them didn’t finish high school.

This egotism and arrogance is palpable in every aspect of Guiteau’s life. He earns a perfect score on this item.

This trait reflects an individual’s need for excitement and change. Psychopaths find many tasks boring and switch plans frequently.
The need for high levels of stimulation leads to poor academic, work, and relationship outcomes. However, it is not for lack of intelligence, but because they are so easily distracted.

John Wilkes Booth was reported to be an average if not slightly below-average student. He was, however, according to his siblings and elementary-school teachers, a hard worker who, once he tackled a problem, was able to always repeat the process, even if schoolwork did not come easily for him. Booth, like most of his siblings, attended and completed boarding school.

Acting, too, did not come easily to him, but he maintained the same strong work ethic in his thespian career as he had in school. It is this dedication that argues against a high score on this trait. Indeed, in the theater, Booth played the same roles over and over again, something that would be very difficult for individuals with high levels of this trait.

Booth, like his father, was a drinker. Occasionally, he would imbibe to excess and arrive late or miss performances. And he was a ladies’ man. He had many opportunities to settle down but preferred the company of many different women, even prostitutes. So he does show evidence of moderate levels of this trait, although not with his family, employees, or teachers.

Guiteau failed to complete college and never really held on to a job. He felt that most jobs were beneath him. He wanted to live an exciting life, full of travel, status, and fame, but he refused to put in the work to earn it. He wrote to generals, senators, even presidents, requesting that he be posted to various ambassadorships or higher-level positions abroad. His need for excitement was a constant drive.

Individuals with this trait often dabble in drugs and use alcohol to excess. Guiteau’s wife reported that he never used drugs or alcohol. But this conflicts with reports that he was arrested for public drunkenness and frequented bars. One needs to be very sensitive to conflicting information from different sources. Here, the records documenting Guiteau’s arrests, and numerous other witness accounts to his drinking, are more credible than his wife’s assertions that her husband did not imbibe.

Except for the lack of drug use, Guiteau is a classic portrait of this trait.

My favorite term for describing this item is
mendacity
. Nearly everyone lies at some point in life. We’re not concerned with the white lie or social lie here.

Mendacity
refers to pathological lying, often for no reason at all, even when facts can be readily checked. Historically, this item was designed to capture the interpersonal style of the individual. Individuals who score high on this trait often lie for no reason whatsoever and, when caught in a lie, are unfazed and unconcerned and just move on to the next question during the interview. As with all traits, this type of interaction must be present in most domains of the person’s life, not just, for example, in business dealings.

With Booth we see no evidence of pathological lying. In fact, even in his numerous dealings with women, he was apparently very straightforward. He told them that he was not interested in marriage, that he was just interested in carnal pleasure and their company for a brief period of time. Booth’s original plan, to be carried out with other Confederate sympathizers, was to kidnap Lincoln and force the North into a prisoner swap, to release the hundreds of captured Southern soldiers. According to his diary, Booth was motivated by stories of Southern soldiers being tortured in Northern prison camps to reveal the whereabouts of Confederate sympathizers hiding in the North. In planning the attempt to kidnap Lincoln, Booth and his conspirators lied to family and friends, but this type of lying is limited to a specific situation and has a purpose. It is not the type of pointless lying that characterizes this trait. Booth was not a pathological liar.

With Guiteau, we see clear evidence of mendacity, with his siblings and father growing up, with his former wife, and of course in
the shady business dealings he was involved in throughout his life. His ex-wife reported during her interview following his arrest that it was impossible to believe anything Guiteau said unless one knew it to be a fact from other information.

Guiteau lied about his education, claiming he finished a college degree at the University of Michigan, though he attended only a few lectures. He lied about his occupation, often telling people he was a published author (he plagiarized his entire book); he advertised himself as an accomplished lawyer (he was disbarred); and he wrote that he was a devoted husband (his wife presented his mistress at their divorce trial). Here is how I score Guiteau and Booth on this trait:

This item is designed to assess a person’s willingness to engage in all types of manipulation for personal gain at the cost of others (e.g., frauds and con jobs).

Guiteau manipulated everyone he came into contact with. His various swindles and schemes left hundreds of victims. He was disbarred in Illinois for fraud over a business deal, and he extorted family, friends, and business partners. He deliberately made friends just so that he could beg, borrow, or extort money from them. To support his vices, he manipulated his wife into working. He faked being president of a national bank to try to secure a loan to buy a newspaper where he could publish his musings and (plagiarized) works. After he fraudulently published his book
The Life of Christ
using a stolen publisher’s logo (D. Lockwood & Co.), he used this false imprint to convince the publisher Wright and Porter to continue production of his book—but never paid them for the work. One other con was that he advertised himself as an attorney of law working in the Massachusetts House of Representatives but held no license in the state (and had been disbarred in Illinois).

In Booth, we see no evidence of conning or manipulation. Prior
to the assassination, Booth was known as a decent businessman, fair to his family and friends. He and his brothers donated to charity. Indeed, a statue of William Shakespeare, paid for by revenue generated by the Booth brothers’ charity performances, still stands in New York’s Central Park just south of the Promenade.

During cross-examination in the trial for the assassination of President Garfield, the prosecutor asked Guiteau: “You have never hinted at any remorse?”

Guiteau answered: “My mind is a perfect blank on that subject.”

Prosecutor: “Do you feel any more remorse about rendering [President Garfield’s] wife a widow and her children fatherless?”

Guiteau answered: “I have no conception of it as murder or killing.”

Guiteau went on to offer a weak response that he “regretted” the necessity of the crime but that his duty to the American people overcame his personal feelings.

We see additional evidence of lack of remorse or guilt in other domains of Guiteau’s life. He was unconcerned about how his lifestyle impacted his father, siblings, business partners, or his former wife. In 1874, Guiteau sued the
New York Herald
for $100,000 libel for reporting on his swindling of hotels and boarding houses (
NYT
archives, July 3, 1881). Guiteau argued that the press damaged his reputation and blamed them for disclosing his dealings inappropriately. (The case went nowhere.) Perhaps one of the clearest, and yet saddest, pieces of evidence of Guiteau’s emotional depravity comes from his father’s private writings. Prior to the assassination, his father wrote: