The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-02-05

Mr.. Jerome. that is not evidence You
must give an opinion
NV opinion . said Dr. Wiley. lis that
the man who committed the act de-
scrfbed was suffering with insanity
The witness was asked to define here
dfrary insanity. which he did but when
a question by Mr. Gleason as to the
influence Of hereditary insanity was
asked it was objected to by Mr.. Jerome
and the court sustained the objection
The defense had no further questions
and the witness was turned over TO
Mr.. Jerome for cross-Fxamination-
Dr. Wiley said that in hereditary in
sanity the common blood would flow
through brothers and therefore cousin.
the son OF an uncle OF the defendant
might follow the same hereditary in
1ueuce.
Are you acquainted as you sit there
with the form Of insanity which the law
of this state defines as excuse for
crime2" asked Mr. Jerome
Not entirely"
Then your opinion on the hypothe-
teal question you have answered was
given as a scientific man
You had in mind the various forms
Of mental alteration which scientific
men meet together and discuss -
Yes, and from my own explanation
OF the medical knowIedges on the sub
ject-
Are You IN Expert?-
Mr.. Jerome then asked the witness
If he really considered himself an ex-
4 feel that I have had expert
.-That is not the point" interrupted
Mr.. Jerome Are you an expert2
We don't know whether You are or
not"
4 think I am competent
Are you an expert?'' shouted
7 am an authority" Dr. Wiley re-
Piled
During the testimony of Dr. Wiley,
Thaw sat taking notes and conversing
counsel The defendant was paIer to-
day than yesterday and seemed much
more composed
After DR.. Wiley had said he was an
authority he was asked by Mr.. Jerome
if he was willing to go on record be-
fore the world in this case as
scientific man. after merely witness
ing Thaw's action on the street car in
PiUlsburg, and from q description of
his killing of Stanford White, as say
ing Thaw was insane
DR.. Wiley replied with decision
Yes
opinion the defendant at the time of
the deed knew that it was murder. the
witness replied yes" and started an
explanation which was stopped quick
" by Mr. Jerome and Mr. Gleason. the
former objecting to the explanation
witness, who had answered in a man
ner not intended by the defense
When the question was again put to
him, he answered no
Dr. Wiley here explained that q per-
son might know what he was doing
and yet be utterly in the control of an
irresistible impulse
In other words commented Mr.
Jerome, we have a sort of voIitionaf
insanity -
That is possible coupled with
morbid impulse"
An act is morbid if it is insane -
Jerome Bears Down
And a man may know the nature
and quality OF his act. know that it is
wrong and against the law and yet be
swept away by an emotional impulse -
Yes, by an impulse over which he
has no control
What evidence of deIusion was
there in the Hypothetical question put
to you by counsel for defendant
asked Mr.. Jerome
The witness started to answer
wait a moment commanded the
district attorney. lets go over this
thing again Give US the substance of
the hypO OthetfcaI 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 know
ledge of the case outside of the ques-
ton
Then you did not base your opfn-
ion entirely upon the question -
Not entirely. I based it on what 7
saw in Pittsburg and what I know OF
the case
Il move that the entire question and
answer be stricken out" said Mr. Je-
rome turning to Justice Fitzgerald
This witness has transxressed the
confidence of the law by taking into
account outside considerations"
Counsel for the defense objected bue
Justice Fitzgerald said he thought it
best to strike the matter out and go air
over again so as to make the record
clear
Attorney Gleason reformed the hy-
pOthetical question. this time basinE it
on the law of insanity as laid down by
the statutes Of the state of New York
Dr. Wiley again declared that he
was competent to answer the question
What is your opinion based on the
form of insanity as laid down by the
law of this state2' questioned Mr.
Gleason
The act was that of an insane
man
Witness Is Radgereti
Mr. Jerome led the witness through
a long series of questions dealing with
all manner of subjects and asking him
his opinion as an expert Of most of
these The district attorneys purpose
70 break up as far as possible the doc
tors influence with the jury was ap-I
parent.
Are you mythoIogist asked Mr.
Jerome
NO
Have you studied the subject?''
Not extensively
.As a matter Of fact do you know
what mythology is2H
Yes
Is mythology an act. or a direct
Dr. Wiley would not venture a de-
cisiOu