The San Francisco call., 1907-02-13

ner's testimony" interrupted DR.. Ev-
ans.
- am not addressing my remarks to
you, sir snapped Mr.. Jerome.
Later in the session DR.. Evans ex-
planned he meant August 19. He said
FINDS THAW NERVOUS
On this visit l found Thaw still nervous agi
tated and he had the peculiar expression of the
eyes familiar with mental disease i also OBJ
served his susoeion Of me and all around him.
,i He sun exhibited delusions or persecution, q
uons because they were unfair.
DIR. Evans next described his third
visit TO Thaw, September 10.
Mr.. Thaw exhibited delusions of sus-
picion, lack of confidence IN his ad-
visers, an eXploslveness of mental
makeup characteristic of a person OF
unsound mind.
How long did the third visit last?'
Only five minutes"
What else did you observer"
There were no hallucinations. Mr.
Thaw dismissed the physicians and had
an argument with his counsel, which
l shall not narrate."
DR.. Evans asked permission to ex-
plain the difference between hallucina-
tions and delusions, and at Mr.. Delmas
suggestion stated the contradiction be-
tween the two, terming the latter as
mlslnlerpreteQ realltleS-
Mr.. Delmas here interrupted the
examination to read from a number OF
authorities in support of the contention
advanced by him yesterday that the
statements of Thaw to the physicians
tending to shed light on his state OF
mind were admissible.
Justice Fitzgerald said as no question
was pending he could not rule.
Mr. Delmas asked DR.. Evans to state
his conversation with the defendant on
September l9. Mr.. Jerome objected.
Mr. Delmas continued to read from
court decisions as a foundation. he said
for introducing statements made by
Thaw at the time of the homicide and
prior thereto. He wanted to show that
the statements of the defendant might
be taken into consideration by an ex-
pert in determining the mental condi-
ton of his subject at the time of an
examination. He said that yesterday a
witness had not been allowed to give
such an opinion.
DELMAS is SARCASTIC
Mr.. Jerome said he did not object to
any such opinion.
Mr.. Delmas asserted that Mr.. Jerome
has reasoned in a circle on this sub
ject"
Justice Fitzgerald said 1t was a case
a
by Delmas. but he did not understand
the facts that way.
Jerome again declared he would not
object to an opinion as to whether the
defendant was insane or sane subse-
quent to the shooting, but wished the
questions to be distinctly confined to
a given period.
The statements made by a man in
prison in his own Defense" said
Jerome, are not permissible under
any circumstances. But if they claim
that the man was insane at the time
of the examination as we'll as when
the act was committed, then 1 am
willing that these conversations shall
go in.
Justice Fitzgerald sustained Jerome's
objection and Delmas proceeded to
question DR.. Evans.
Were the oral statements made by Mr.. Thaw
material in the formation Of your opinion to
his mental condition.!
Yes.
Were the conversations necessary to enable an
expert to form an opinion as to the defendant s
They were not entirely necessary. but they
were highly important
Now, what was il?
District Attorney Jerome objected
and was sustained.
I will now ask you, continued Delmas, If as a
result of your eight examinations you formed
opinion to this mans mental state at the
time Of your visitsi
His mental condition varied.
Answer yes or no as to whether you formed
an opinion?
EGO EXAGGERATED
DR.. Evans then went on to the next
visit on September %. DR.. Wagner
was also present.
We examined his general attitude. his manner
Of entering the room. manner Of thought and
general department. He was still highly nervous
and still suspicious of every one He exhibited
directed by me.
When did you next see him?
On September q. when we made a complete
physical examination.
DR.. Evans said the next visit was on
September 29.
Many of the previous tests were repeated. We
asked various questions and the prisoner gave
with matches.
Mr.. Jerome objected.
Mr. Thaw took matches and placed them so as
to show positions which may have been clear to
him. but were confusing to me- did not think
his explanations were clear logical. He was
calm, less suspicious and more confding
The next visit Dr. Evans made was
on October 1.
This time Mr.. Thaw was extremely cordial
and talked 20 like brother or friend.
The eighth VISIT was made on October g.
We had protracted interview with Mr.. Thaw
in which a subject TO his heart was dis
cussed. 1t lasted two hours, said Dr. Evans.
Under the ruling of the court can you say
anything further regarding this visit?
Under the courts eliminations there is nothing
more can say
At this point the court took a recess
for luncheon.
DR.. Evans resumed the stand after
the midday recess.
Doctor, asked Mr.. Delmas as a result of your
eight visits to Mr.. Thaw did you form an opin-
ion to the then mental condition of Mr.. Thaw
Yes.
Was it based IN part on the oral statements OF
Mr. Thaw during these visits?
1t in part.
VIII you now state what that opinion was;
Mr.. Jerome objected.
FORMS TWO OPINIONS
The witness said az the result of his first
three visits he formed an opinion and as the
result of the last five visits he formed another
Were they based In part on oral statements
by the defendant?
Yes.
State those two opinions.
That is objected TO, interrupted Jerome The
two questions should be separated.
If ask the question will be allowed TO
ask the second? inquired Delmas.