Sexual Murder - Justicia Forense

the police. When it was pointed out to him that he had been arrested severalyears earlier for armed robbery, he denied any knowledge of such an incident.He said that he did not remember murdering anybody and that he had neverheard of B, even though he had lived with her for 8 to 10 years. He also insistedthat he did not remember disposing of the evidence, moving to a new locationseveral miles away, changing his name, and telling those who inquired about thevictim that she had gone to a nursing home.The defendant was also uncooperative with psychological testing and refused todo many of the tasks. When asked to name the three colors of the American flag,he said, “Red, white, that’s all I know.” He also stated that the shape of a ball is“square.” When asked to name four recent U.S. presidents, he said, “The hell withthe presidents, they never gave me nothing.” He did, however, provide an interestingresponse to Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) card 13MF, which gives someinkling of the possible motivation for the homicide: “He is standing there, or maybehe killed her. Maybe they were fighting or something. Maybe he just hit her orstepped on her. He killed her, that’s all I know. Maybe she kicked him or somethinglike that. They had a fight, she kicked him, and then he killed her, I guess.”The psychiatrist retained by the defense attorney approached this case as ifthe defendant were a newly admitted patient in the hospital, in which case thepsychiatrist would seek to describe the presenting problem. Although the psychiatristindicated in his report that he had reviewed the various police reports,he did not explain why the defendant gave a detailed statement to the police buttold him that he had no memory of the events. The psychiatrist concluded, asa result of the defendant’s reported lack of memory, that the offender had anorganic brain syndrome caused by alcoholism. Evidently, this psychiatristbelieved that anyone who would have killed his lady friend in such a mannermust have been insane; he thereby demonstrated his lack of understanding ofthe legal standard, as well as his general uninformed approach to the evaluation.The prosecution expert, by contrast, relied on the facts of the case and integratedthese facts with the offender’s responses. The defendant eventually pleaded guiltyand in a statement to the court gave a detailed account of the murder andsurrounding events. Complete neurological evaluation was negative.The next case raises another important issue frequently encountered inforensic work. A defense attorney, for example, will retain an expert who hasextensive knowledge and experience with a particular condition such assubstance abuse, sex offenses, eating disorders, juvenile delinquency, or posttraumaticstress disorder. But this expert may not understand the basics ofconducting a forensic examination and, therefore, as in the preceding example,approaches the case as if the defendant were a patient being evaluatedin an office setting or a hospital.In Case 2.2, the defense-retained psychologist had extensive expertise(obtained through treatment of patients in her private practice) in battered