The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-06
JEROME MERQLESSLY
 PLAYS THAW'S EXPERTS
tContinued from Page onel

 , of the medical knowledge of the sub ject."
 MT. Jerome then asked the witness If he really considered himself an ex- pert.
 T feel that have had experience terrupted MT. Jerome. Are you an expert" We don't know whether you are or not T think I am competent- Are you an expert?" shouted Je- | rome.
 q am an authority" Dr Wiley re- | piled.
 During the testimony of Dr. Wiley. Thaw sat with paper taking notes, and consulting constantly with MT. Peabody of his counsel. The defen- dant was paler today than on yester- day and seemed much more composed. After Dr. Wiley had said he was an authority he was asked by MT. Je- rome If he was willing to go on rec ord before the woldr in this case as a scientific man, after merely wit messing Thaw's action on the street car in Pittsburg and from descrip- ton of his killing of Stanford White, as saying Thaw was insane.
 Wiley Changes Answer.
 Dr. Wiley replied with decision:
 Yes"
 Asked by Mir. Gleason, if, in his opinion. the defendant at the time of the deed, knew that it was wrong, the witness replied: Yes" and star ted an explanation which was stopped quickly by MT. Jerome and Mir. Glea- son, the former objecting to the ex- planation and the latter endeavoring to stop his witness, who had answer ed in a manner not intended by the defense. When the question was again put to him he answered No"
 Dr. Wiley here explained that a person might know what he was doing and yet be utterly in the control of an Irresistible impulse.
 Tn other words" commented Mir. Jerome. we have sort of volitional insanity?"
 That Is possible, coupled with
 An action is morbid if it is insane"
 Yes"
 And man may know the nature and quality of his act know that 1t is wrong and against the law, and yet be swept away by an emotional im- pulse?"
 Yes, by an impulse over which he has no control"
 What evidence of delusion was there in the hypothetical question put to you by counsel for defense?" asked MT. Jerome
 The witness started to answer.
 Wait moment" commanded the. district attorney. Tets go over this thing again. Give us the substance of the hypothetical question on which you based so important an opinion in this case"
 In repeating the question the wit ness inadvertently admitted that he had taken into consideration his knowledge of the case outside of the question.
 Then you did not base your opin- ion entirely on the question:"
 Not entirely. I based 1t on what saw in Pittsburg and what know of the case"
 Opinion Stricken Out.
 T move that the entire question and answer be stricken out" said Mir. Jerome. turning to Justice Fitzger- aid. This witness has transgressed the confines of the law by taking in- to account outside considerations"
 Counsel for the defense objected. hut Justice Fitzgerald said he thought 1t best to strike the matter out and 20 all over 1t again so as to keep the record clear.
 Attorney Gleason reformed the hypo- thetical question, this time passing it on the law of insanity as laid down by the statutes of the State of New York. pr, Wiley again declared he was com potent to answer the question.
 What is your opinion based on the form of insanity as laid down by the law of this StateT' asked MT. Gleason.
 The act was that of an insane man. {"
 MT. Jerome led the witness through a long series of questions dealing with all manner of subjects and asking him his opinion as an expert on most of these. The District Attorneys purpose to break up as far as possible the doc tors influence with the jury was ap- parent.
 Are you a mythologist?" asked MT. Jerome.
 No"
 Have you studied the subject?"
 Not extensively.
 "As a matter of fact do you know what mythology is?"
 "Yes.''
 "Is mythology an act or q direct act9'
 Dr. Wiley would not venture a de. cIsion.
 You say dciusion is the result of pathological condition?'
 Yes"
 Then the defendants deusions mus have come from a pathological condi. tion?'
 Yes. coupled with functional con dition." "Is it possible for a function 10 b, abnormal unless there is a disease?" "Yes. a dilated artery, for instance" 'But a dilated artery has nothing tt do with the case of Harry Thaw. hal