Chapter 45 Section 20

On the morning of Wednesday, July 30, the prosecution announced the end of the evidence collection. Claren Darrow's first witness was Dr. William Waite, president of the American Psychiatric Association.As soon as Dr. Whit took his seat on the witness stand, Attorney General Robert Corow protested eloquently: "When you decide a case, you don't need a microscope to explore the criminal's brain. to determine whether he is responsible for his actions. All you need are the facts. For example, did he kill that man because he seduced his wife? If so, a lighter sentence; Has this person spread rumors around him to slander him? If yes, then a lighter sentence; did he kill that person because two people were drunk and killed each other, if so, then a lighter sentence. However, what we are now facing, It was a premeditated murder case of a brutal nature. There is no precedent in history for the 'insanity plea' to be introduced after the defendant pleaded 'guilty' and evaded a jury trial."

Thus began a two-day debate. Before this trial, the defense could only introduce evidence of its insanity in a "not guilty" plea, and it was up to the jury to make the final verdict on whether the court should admit or reject the evidence. As a reporter said in a report: "When the audience in the courtroom was hypnotized by the scorching heat and the obscure legal terms in the speeches of both parties, the defense lawyers in this case are trying to Open a new page in American judicial history." Finally, with the help of Judge John Gavelli, they completed this "feat"-at 11:00 am on Friday, August 1, 1924, the judge dismissed the prosecution Fang's protest, allowing Dr. William Waite and others to appear in court as expert witnesses in this case.

"Richard grew up feeling somewhat neglected by his family," Dr. Waite said in his testimony. When he entered college at the age of 14, his classmates were four to eight years older than him. "He started drinking like the older kids" to gain their approval and acceptance.Richard often imagined himself as a big guy, a big guy.When he was a child, he liked to "dress up as a cowboy or a policeman to take pictures", and when he was a little older, he fantasized that he was "a criminal who makes people fearful, the leader of a criminal gang".After being arrested and imprisoned for the kidnapping and tearing of tickets by Bobby Fanks, although the public showed great indignation towards the murderer, Richard believed that many young people would regard him as a hero.He believes that "wearing a prison uniform behind bars" is the image he has always hoped for.

"Nathan discovered his own uniqueness and incompatibility with the surrounding environment at a very young age." His withdrawnness evolved into "self-centeredness" as he grew older. "But under the appearance of intelligence, Nathan is actually very fragile", so he is not "criminally inclined" like Richard. What the two defendants have in common, apart from their intelligence, age and family background, is that although they both have outstanding academic performance, they are "very immature, even childish" in terms of their personality and social experience. , which is only equivalent to the level of a normal child aged 8 to 10."Although neither Nathan nor Richard explicitly admitted to it, Dr Waite believes they must have experienced some form of bullying among older children, which contributed to their "antisocial feelings".

Richard, for example: "Has seriously considered suicide. He said he is very satisfied with his life so far, but life can no longer give him more, because he has enjoyed all of life." "Richard All of that criminal activity is part of his self-destruction." The expert pointed out that the murder of Bobby Fanks was the result of the cooperation of the two defendants, or "the result of the intertwined influence of their personalities". "I can't imagine that Nathan alone would come up with the idea of ​​kidnapping and killing, because there is no criminal element in his personality. I can't imagine that Richard would commit such a sensational case alone," because he "needed to The audience. In his hallucinations, the gang is his audience. In real life, Nathan is his audience.” More importantly, Nathan’s audience is not passive.He's not just watching, he's the reason actors are actors.Often when an actor suffers setbacks and is about to leave the stage, the audience will step forward, block the actor's way, and encourage or even force the actor to continue performing the scene that has already started.Thus, "in the case of Bobby Fanks, it was Nathan who first came up with the scripted alibi. When the two learned that the body had been found and Richard was about to call it quits, it was Nathan who insisted on going as planned." Plan to call Van der Polg and Ross Pharmacy." Similarly, during the interrogation by the police, it was Nathan who denied it categorically and resisted until the last moment.

During the cross-examination, Attorney General Robert Corow asked, "From what you've seen, Doctor, who do you think killed Bobby Fanks?" After a short pause, the Attorney General added, "They Which of the "I think it should be Richard. Although he won't admit it to the authorities in order to mitigate his guilt." In fact, whether it was Nathan or Richard who poked the chisel into Bobby Fanks' forehead, from the law From my point of view, both criminals should bear equal responsibility for the crime.Dr. William Waite continued: "I didn't ask. But I knew after they had been checked and tested. Or rather, I thought I knew. I was interested in that, but I didn't Not curious."

Dr. Will Hurley from Boston is an expert in the study of juvenile delinquency. He also presided over various test papers for Nathan and Richard in this case. Dr. Hurley testified that Nathan's silent reading test score was the highest he had ever seen, and Nathan's memory was also quite amazing, with a photographic memory.Dr. Hurley once wrote down 20 unrelated words by hand, and Nathan was able to recite them backwards after reading them, and remembered them clearly the next day.However, Dr. Hurley said that Nathan's performance in "factual judgment" was not satisfactory. "I was surprised by his low score." That's the average 12-year-old. Or, 25 percent of 10-year-olds would do better than him."