Sexual Murder - Justicia Forense

When asked why she did not mention being frightened of A when she wasinitially arrested, B responded, “I don’t know why I didn’t mention it. Everyoneknows I was scared. People knew A was in control.” Even after A was arrestedand unable to hurt her, B was still unable to explain why she expressed no fearof him; the reported fear of A supposedly experienced by B only emerged 3 yearsafter their arrest during the defense expert’s evaluation.Psychological test findings were helpful in understanding some of the dynamicsof the case. For example, the Rorschach showed mild anxiety and depression,inner conflict, and a very severe personality disturbance characterized by weakcontrols and lack of solid integration and cohesiveness. There were a numberof aggressive, as well as regressive, perceptions, such as the following: “Lookslike two people pulling the person in the middle apart. The person is holdingsomeone’s hands up and pulling them. Separating him. It looks like blood ’causeit’s red. Maybe their legs are bleeding.”“Looks like a sword separating something,splitting something in half. Splashed or splotched paint on the wall.” Her mostprimitive Rorschach response suggested that her functioning could become veryregressive: “A monster. A big ugly monster. Claws and big feet; he is droppingsomething out of him. Maybe he is shitting, I don’t know what all that is, comingout of him.” The Minnesota Multiphastic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profilereflected a broodingly resentful person, who is angry and ruminates about realor imagined injustices done to her.The jury found B responsible for both murders. They found no evidence ofbattered woman syndrome or anything even closely connected to it. The defensepsychologist was not incompetent or untruthful; she simply did not know howto conduct a forensic evaluation. She was basically practicing clinical psychologyin a forensic setting by interviewing the defendant in the same way she wouldinterview a patient who came to her for treatment. Although this psychologist,like the defense psychiatrist in Case 2.1, said that she had read the legal discovery,her final conclusions demonstrate that she ignored these findings or, at the veryleast, believed that her own interview with the defendant was more valid. Neitherof these experts helped the dependant or provided much understanding of theoffenders or their crimes.2.2 Psychological TestingPsychological testing is a quantitative or quasi-quantitative method of evaluatingpersonality, psychopathology, and mental functioning. It has beenused for many years to supplement information obtained through the clinicalinterview and review of various background records. Testing has always hadgeneral appeal because its purpose, in part, is to reduce much of the subjectivityof the clinical evaluation, as well as to assess the individual from adifferent perspective. Since psychological testing is an aid in the process ofdiagnostic (and psychodynamic) formulation, it has been widely used in