Sexual Murder - Justicia Forense

happened, but I just couldn’t take her anymore. She was falling down allthe time. If anyone asked, I just told them B went to a nursing home.To evaluate his client the defense attorney retained a hospital-based generalpsychiatrist who had substantial experience in conducting forensic assessments.The psychiatrist first took the offender’s history and then conducted “a psychiatricexamination and a mental status examination.” He reported the following findings:The defendant attributed a considerable amount of his difficulties to amugging which occurred some years ago and he pointed to a scar on hisscalp, on the back of his head. Actually, AA did not know whether ornot he killed B, but he ultimately was arrested and incarcerated. Here isa man who is thoroughly confused and is suffering from obvious organicbrain disease (brain tissue injury) which has produced memory loss,both for recent and remote events. He has little recall of any events, noless the ones that caused him to be incarcerated. He has a long historyof alcoholism and was institutionalized at a rehabilitation program onat least one occasion. He is poorly oriented as to time. He does not knowthe exact hour of the day or the date. However, he did know the yearand month. Associative thought processes are in question. He did notanswer questions without prodding, nor did he answer them directlyand relevantly. Affective behavior was also unusual. Insight as to how heaffects others is impaired. Reality-testing functions, however, appearedto be intact, in that he is not overtly hallucinating or delusional.The psychiatrist offered a diagnosis of “organic brain syndrome due to alcohol(toxic),” and gave the following final opinions and recommendations: “Here isa man who has actual physical brain impairment and it is extensive. Moreover,AA is very credible in his replies (whatever they may be), inasmuch as he franklystated that he did not know whether he killed B or not. He has no recollectionof it. This examiner is of the opinion that he certainly falls within the purviewof the M’Naughten Rule and that he did not know the nature and quality of hisacts by reason of his brain disease.”Here, the psychiatrist disregarded the facts of this case (although his reportindicated that he had read all the police and witness reports) and relied totallyon what the defendant told him. He evidently ignored AA’s statements to thepolice that he had killed B following an argument, dismembered her, packedthe body parts in a methodical fashion, placed them in his refrigerator, and then,over the course of a week or so, dropped the various body parts off a bridge,hoping that they would drift out to sea. AA then cleaned the apartment, paintedpart of it, changed his name, and moved. When examined, the defendant toldthe psychiatrist that he had no idea what had happened, and the psychiatristevidently believed him.When the prosecution expert evaluated AA, he was uncooperative andunpleasant, with anger right at the surface. He reported that he never hadarguments with anyone and that he had never previously been in trouble with