Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-02-05
WILEY SAYS THAW
WAS INSANE WHEN
HE KILLED WHITE

/ IT. stb..S0 Uuubb u
Continued from First Page)
the form Of insanity which the law of this
| state defines as excuses for crime?" asked
| Mr.. Jerome.
From Scientific Viewpoint.
mot entirely
| 'Then your opinion on the hypothetical
| question you have answered was given as
| a scientific and medical man, and you
| had in mind the various forms of mental
alteration which scientific men meet to-
1 sether and discuss?"
Eyes, and from my own application of the
medical knowledge on the subject"
Mr.. Jerome then asked the witness If he
really considered himself an expert.
| Il feel have had experience-''
''That is not the point interrupted Je-
rome. Are you an expert? We don't
know whether you are or not"
| Il think am competent
Are you an eXpert?" shouted Jerome.
! II am an authority" DR.. Wiley replied.
| After Dr. Wiley had said he was an au-
| thority he was asked by Mr.. Jerome II he
| was willing to go on record before the
| world in this case as scientific man, after
merely witnessing Thaw's action on the
street car in Pittsburg and from a descrip-
ton of his killing of Stanford White, as
| saying Thaw was insane.
| Dr. whey replied with declsIon:
! Yes"
knowledge Of the Case.
| In repeating the question the witness iE-
advertently admitted that he had taken
| into consideration his knowledge Of the
| xr,;l 80
did not base your opinion entirely upon
| the question:
| Not entirely. / based it on what I
! saw in Pittsburg and what 1 know of the
| case"
| Il move that the entire question and
answer be stricken out" said Mr.. Jerome,
| turning to Justice Fitzgerald This wit
ness has transgressed the confines Of the
| law by taking into account outside con-
| sderatons."
! Counsel for the defense objected. but
| justice Fitzgerald said he thought it best
to strike the matter out and go all over
it again. so as to keep the record clear.
Attorney Gleason then reformed the
| hypothetical question, this time basing 1t
on the law of insanity as laid down by
the statutes of the state of New York.
| Dr. Wiley then declared he was compe-
| tent to answer the question.
| What is your opinion based on the form
| of insanity as laid down ry the law of this
| state?" asked Mr.. Gleason.
THE act was that of an insane man.
| DIR. Wiley here explained that person
| might know what he was doing and yet
| be utterly in the control of an irresistible
impulse.
| I'm other Words commented Mr.. Je-
| 1--WE have sort of VOlitiOnal in
| sanity?'
THAT is possible, coupled with morbid
| impulse
AN act is morbid if it is insane?"
YES"
Not a Psychologist.
Mr.. Jerome led the witness through q
| long series of questions dealing with all
manner Of subjects, and asking his Qpn-
! ion as an expert on most of these The
| district attorneys purpose to break up as
| far as possible the doctors influence with
| the jury was apparent.
Are you a mythologizt?" asked Mr..
| Jerome.
No"
Have you studied the subject?"
| Not extensively.
LAS matter of fact. do you know what
| mythology is?'"
| Yes"
rs mythology an act or direct act?"
DIR. Wiley would not venture a decision.
You say a delusion is the result of
pathological condition.
Yes
Then the defendants delusion must
| have come from pathological condi-
| tion?"
Yes, coupled with functional con-
dition."
| rs it possible for a function to be alb
| normal unless there is disease?"
Yes. A dilated artery, for instance"
But a dilated artery has nothing to
| do with the case of Harry Kendall Thaw.
has it?
No"
DR.. Wiley defined delusion as an Ger
roneous conclusion arising from false
premises"
Not Christian Scientist.
Mr.. Jerome wanted to know if DR.. Wi
ley believed in Christian Science. The
doctor hesitated to answer directly, but
was pinned closely to the question by
| that he did not.
Asked then if he did not think all
| Christian Scientists had reached wrong
conclusions, and, suffering from delu
| sion, were therefore insane, DR.. Wiley
| replied that conclusions may be right,
but their premises may be wrong"
Jerome Angry.
This line of questioning soon led to a.
wordy clash between attorney and witness,
In which Mr.. Jerome interrupted the wit
ness replies with loudly exclaimed:
Did ask you that? Did 1? Answer me?"
NO" the witness confessed.
Upon what in the hypothetical question
did you base your conclusion as to insan-
ity?''
The fact that the man, sitting with
party suddenly arose and without provo
cation"
Is there anything in the question about
PROPAGATION? 2" Jerome interrupted.
| NO., DR.. Wiley replied with a show of
feeling. u