The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1907-03-05
Expert Tells of brain Storm" Theory

Continued from First Page
to walk twenty-five or thirty feet
Al have already tried to make clear
that you cannot lay down any hard
and fast rules as TO what would be the
, natural thing for an insane person TO
do.
Cases of Sudden Impulse.
Odd you ever know Of such a
thing?
Al know of many cases of sudden
irv,nulses, all in marked contrast to the
p1cVIous actions Of the subject. I'M
pulses come very quickly.
Q.-TeI us of such a case?
Al have in mind the case Of a man,
who. with the utmost elaboration, re-
moved HIS cravat and. fastening it 10 a
| bed. post and placing his head inside the
moose. laid own and slowly strangled.
Q.-Was he suffering from a brain
| storm?
A.-That I cannot tell: lie had some
mental disturbance which favored his
! acting upon the sudden impulse.
| Q.-Had he demenua praecOX?
| Ale had shown symptoms OF it,
! Odd he show elaboration and calm
| ness?
A.-Yes: the fact that he had com
mitted this act would indicate that he
| had melancholia ideas.
Q.-Can you recall any case of
| typical brain storm such as this de-
| PENDANT was suffering2
| Al haNe seen thousands Of cases Of
/ insanity, but ] rarely find two alike.
II would be impossible to recall those
| such as you ask.
Fits No Particular Case.
Q.-Then you cannot recall a case Of
brainstorm or mental illumination where
the patient committed an act Of vio-
! lence with the utmost elaboration and
without showing any signs OF outward
agitation?
i A.-That description does not accurate
~ fit any case 1 have ever known eX-
| cept this one.
! Or course. there is no way OF tell
ing what was going on IN THIS defend
ants mind but so far as the facts so.
and the description Of the killing, what
/ single thing is there in IL showing that
this man bad brain-storm raging IN
Al have tried to make it clear that
! single instances or happenings have No
importance on the final conclusion un-
less they are take into consideration
with the other facts in the case.
( Q.-Is there anything I'm the hypotheti-
| cal question I'm regard to the actual KILL
ing that indicates in any way, shape, or
- manner that this defendant was LAB
oring under brdiH-storm2
| Al cannot recall the entire question
Mr.. Jerome read the parts OF the
On those facts just read. IS there
| anything showing that there was a
brain storm or mental Elimination
A.-TEere is great deal there.
Q.-What Is 81?
A.--rhc very fact that he lid such an
, extraordinary thing as TO shoot man
I'm n hubble Dlace-a theater-and in the
> presence OF his wife and friends And
taking Into consideration the fact that
the man he killed had threatened his
life-all these things lead mo 10 believe
/ he was suffering from what DR. Evans
| SO ably described as a brain storm.
His Enmity Toward White.
Q.-Thc killing Of a man toward whom
he entertained a deadly enmity who
was helpless and unarmed-wOuld that
Indicate that ne had brain Storm
A.-You have put into your question
some things that were not in the ny
potheticaI question
Q.-Is the deadly cnmity ono OF the
things TO which YOU refcr2 Is it no,
true that he entertained deadly Cnmity
: toward the man whom he believed "a
, have ruined the young woman who had
I become the defendants wife?
Ayes
Jeorme then framed a question very
, much after the fashion Of the hypothet-
2 serted the phrase "And who killed this
man at the first opportunity he had had
! to attack White with impuuity."
{ DIR. Wagner called the attention Of th'
district attorney 10 the fact that nc had
embodied things I'm the question that
We're not in evidence
Delmas objected 10 the question anC
I / II was withdrawn.
Q.-You have heard the section Of thu
| hypothetical question which described
- the killing of White by Thaw. Keepinl
% ! these facts in mind and believing tn,
= / evidence does IL not disclose that thu
defendant ever before had an oppOr
n [ tunity to attack with impUnity the mar
D . who had wronged his wife. would you
4 say as an expert that the man who die
h the shooting was sane or insane?
Delmas and jerome Tilt.
e Delmas objected on the ground that
r. Jcrome's question embodied facts not IL
| evidence
Jcromc-Point out that fact that ii
! not i'm evidence.
I Delmas-Thc fact that he had not me
White before the time OF the shooting
Jerome did not say that What
:, said was that the defendant had no
a until then an opportunity to kill White
9 Just poin out one occasion. Mr.. Delmaj
. when ne did have an opportunity TO xii
!, him.
s Jerome then put the question to th'
= witness again. jerome qualified tn
q question, however. and the witness an
; swered.
: 81 believe he was so intensely agra
waited that his brain storm was intensi
: fed by the sudden meeting with tn
! man"
Q.-Would the intensity Of the motiv
10 kill lead TO greater brain storm?
A.-Oh, yes.
Q.-What logical connection had tn
: meeting with the act?
Al Savc tried TO make clear 10 yo1
that there cannot be any logical con
, neCtion between acts and motives il
n insane persons
=. Q--Wen. assume insane persons he
- licvc they are prosecuted. Do the,
y shoot those whom they believe to b
C their prosecutors?
l. A.-SOmetmes they do.
~ Odd he exhibit paranaoid form
o Of adolesceut insanity?
Al told you his condition was no
ca ffFsfar Ill.