From the direct examination by defense attorney Claude Cross:
Q. What is your opinion, Dr. Binger, of the mental condition of Mr.
Chambers?
A. I think Mr. Chambers is suffering from a condition known as psychopathic
personality, which is a disorder of character, of which the outstanding
features are behavior of what we call an amoral or an asocial and delinquent
nature.
Q. Will you define for us, Doctor, what you mean by amoral and asocial?
A. I mean that amoral behavior is bahavior that does not take account
the ordinary accepted conventions of morality; and asocial behavior is
behavior which has not regard for the good of society and of individuals,
and is therefore frequently destructive of both.
Q. Is psychopathic personality a recognized mental disease?
A. It is.
Q. Will you tell us what you mean when you say that psychopathic personality
is recognized mental disease?
A. I mean that it is listed as a standard diagnosis among the standard
diagnoses accepted by the American Psychiatric Association, and can be
found I think on page 601-- I am not certain of the page--of the American
Hygiene Laws and General Orders of the Department of Mental Hygiene of
the State of New York. You will find there the diagnosis of psychopathic
personality among the diagnoses of mental illness.
Q. Is that a classification that has been put out by the Department
of Mental Hygiene of the State of New York?
A. It is, yes, sir.
Q. And that Order has been effective for how long?
A. That I can't precisely say but I would guess at least 15 years.
Q. Aside from it being included in the classification under Mental Hygiene
Laws of the State of New York and its Orders, is it recognized in the standard
text books or texts on psychiatry?
A. Oh, yes, there has been a great deal written about it both here and
abroad, and there are many standard books that cover this subject.
Q. Will you tell us, Dr. Binger, what some of the symptoms of a psychopathic
personality are?
A. Well, they are quite variegated. They include chronic, persistent
and repetitive lying; they include stealing; they include acts of deception
and misrepresentations; they include alcoholism and drug addiction; abnormal
sexuality; vagabondage; panhandling; inability to form stable attachments;
and a tendency to make false accusations.
May I say that in addition to what is commonly recognized by the layman
as lying, there is a peculiar kind of lying known as pathological lying,
and a peculiar kind of tendency to make false accusations known as pathological
accusations, which are frequently found in the psychopathic personality.
Q. Are there treatises on the matter of pathological lying and pathological
false accusing?
A. Yes. One of the best books in this country was written by William
Healy, who was for many years the head of the Judge Baker Foundation in
Boston, whose interest was in delinquency.
Q. What would you say, Dr. Binger, as to the nature of the acts of a
psychopathic personality, one having a psychopathic personality?
A. Well, I should say, first of all--
Q. In addition to what you have already said; I don't want you to repeat.
A. Yes, I understand that. First of all, a psychopath is quite
aware of what he is doing but he does not always know why he does it; and
to characterize the acts in a qualitative way, they are frequently impulsive
and very often bizarre, so that they do not make much sense to the casual
observer who does not understand what the particular fantasy or imagination
there is behind these acts; because the acts actually represent something
private to the patient, but from a point of view of common sense and understanding
apparently making no sense.
Q. Would it proper, Dr. Binger, to refer to an individual who has a
psychopathic personality as a psychopath? Is that the recognized
term that is used?
A. Well, that is a n abbreviation, yes, sir, and is to be distinguished
from a psychotic or insane person. It has nothing to do with conventional
judgment of sanity.
Q. How about neurotic classifications? Would it be distinguished
from that?
A. I think I should emphasize that these are not hard and fast distinctions;
that many psychopaths have certain characteristics which we see in more
seriously mentally disturbed psychotic individuals. For example,
they very frequently, in fact, almost always, exhibit what we call paranoid
thinking, about which I will talk later; and they also, on the other hand,
exhibit some of the characteristics seen in neurotic individuals, in the
form of anxiety or over-concern about their bodies, or hypochondriasis,
or something of that sort; but it is a kind of middle ground between the
psychotic and the neurotic.
Q. Have you any suggestions for the cause of the disease which you have
here described as psychopathic personality?
A. I do not know the cause of it; nobody knows the cause of it.
It is a disorder of personality beginning in early youth and almost always--in
fact, one can say always--lasting throughout life. But I know some
of the apparent causes. These unfortunate people have a conviction
of the truth and validity of their own imaginations, of their own fantasies
without respect to outer reality; so that they play a part in life, play
a role. They may be a hero at one moment and a gangster at the next.
They act as if a situation were true which, in fact, is true only in their
imaginations; and on the basis of such imaginations they will claim friendships
where not exist, just as they will make accusations which have no basis
in fact, because they have a constant need to make their imaginations come
true by behaving as if the outer world were actually in accord with their
own imagination.
Q. By that, Dr. Binger, do you mean that a psychopath is insensible
to the feelings of others?
A. Well, he is amazingly isolated and egocentric. He does not
really establish a rapport with other people, and he never knows how other
people feel because he is always playing a part as if what he thought to
be true was true of others.
Q. Would it be consistent of the behavior of a psychopath in describing
his relation with another to tell about trips, visits, exchange of gifts
and other acts of association which, in fact, never occurred?
A. Anything is consistent because he will simply tell what he believes
at the moment or what needs to be true, and, of course, that would be quite
consistent.
From the cross examination Thomas Murphy (Jan. 10, 1950):
[1]
Q. Dr. Binger, on your direct examination, that is the time when you
were being examined by Mr. Cross, you did not give to the jury, did you,
any explanation of the fact that Mr. Chambers had these four handwritten
notes which contained the State Department documents, or the bases from
them, or the fact that Mr. Chambers had all of these typewritten sheets
which contained copies of State Department documents and which were typed
on that machine. You did not explain that as part of your direct examination,
did you, Doctor?
A. You mean did I explain how he got them?
Q. No. My question was simply did you explain that as part of your direct
examination.
A. Well, I don't want to appear too stupid, but did I explain that he
had them?
Q. No. Did you explain the fact that Mr. Chambers, for instance, had
these four handwritten notes, which notes contained sometimes copies, sometimes
extracts, from State Department telegrams that had passed over Mr. Hiss's
desk? Did you explain that?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Now, Doctor, you will have to be a little more patient with me. I
don't quite understand, Doctor, perhaps because of my unfamiliarity with
some of the medical terms, but when you explained to the jury that in your
opinion as an expert psychiatrist, that Mr. Chambers had a psychopathic
personality I do not understand just exactly what a psychopathic personality
is. In other words, my recollection is that you did not define the term
the same as you define say, pneumonia. As I understand it, you said that
it was a recognized mental disease and then you started to give various
symptoms. Now I wonder, Doctor, could you give us a rather clear, concise
definition in the language that we all would understand of what psychopathic
personality means?
A. Yes, I think I can. I tried to do that the other day. I said that
a psychopathic personality was a disorder of
character in which the outstanding features.
Q. No, if you can just define it, Doctor. The first was excellent. It
is a disorder of the character. Now without going into the symptoms or
the characteristics, if you I could just, for instance, start off by defining
what pneumonia is. Tell us what pneumonia is.
A. I will do that. Pneumonia is an infectious disease due to the invasion
of the blood stream with the micro-organism called pneumococcus, of which
the outstanding characteristic is an inflammatory process in the lung.
That is the definition I think you probably would find in most advanced
texts about pneumonia.
Q. In other words it is some germ that somehow gets into the bloodstream
and as a result of getting in the blood stream that causes an inflammation
of some part of the body?
A. The lung; one or more lobes of the lung.
Q. And a psychopathic personality, continue from there.
A. I said it was a disorder of the character. My next effort was
to tell you what kind of disorder of character it was, and at that point
you stopped me.
Q. Can we say, so far as a medical definition is concerned, it s a disorder
of character? Can we go further than that in defining it without
next going into symptoms?
A. I think we can.
Q. All right, if you will.
A. I said it was a disorder of the character. My next effort was to
tell you what kind of disorder of character it was, and at that point you
stopped me.
A. One has to assume that by the word "character" we include the mental
and emotional life of the individual, because character is composed of
or is activated by our mental and emotional life. When I say "character"
I mean it is a disorder involving the mental and emotional life.
Q. It is a disorder of character as you have defined the term "character"?
A. Yes.
Q. Anything more concise than that?
A. Well, the next step would naturally be to intimate what kind of disorder
of character it was. That gets us into the realm of behavior.
Q. Well, Doctor, can we say that as far as you would be willing to go
on a concise definition basis is that it is
a disorder of character? In other words, you won't go any further than
that in your definition, will you, Doctor, except, of course, explaining
the symptoms?
A. I will go further if you will allow me to.
Q. Oh, indeed, yes.
A. It is a disorder of character, by which I mean disorder of the mental
and emotional life, the signs of which have to do with the particular kind
of behavior of the person who is suffering from this disorder. In other
words, there is no test of character except the behavior. That is, the
outward sign of the mental and emotional life of this individual.
Q. Aren't you then, Doctor, going into rather what you mean by the definition
of character? I was trying to nail down, if I could, just what this disease
was so that the jury and myself could really see whether it does in fact
apply to this witness, Mr. Chambers, and you have said -
A. Mr. Murphy, I will do anything I can to make this as clear as I can,
but I naturally have to use the definitions that I believe to be true.
Q. Oh yes, Doctor. Isn't it true that almost every human act can be
defined in almost simple terms?
A. I think that is true.
Q. Well, Doctor, can you then use - bear in mind you have such an advantage
over all of us - could you use then as simple terms as possible? We have
I think an understanding of the phrase" a disorder of character." Can you
go any further in your definition and explain just what this disease is?
A. Well, thus far I have described only two other terms - one was the
mental life, the other was the emotional life. Those are pretty everyday
terms. And I said, to go further, I have to describe the behavior of such
individual. If you want me to do that, I can.
Q. No. Then isn't it fair, Doctor, that you cannot give us some concrete
or concise definition without going into the relative symptoms?
A. I couldn't give the precise definition of any illness, typhoid or
pneumonia, or any illness, without describing the illness, which means
describing either the signs or the symptoms.
Q. You couldn't describe, for instance, diabetes in such a way that
all of us would understand just exactly what the disease diabetes is, so
that we perhaps would recognize it if we saw it? Supposing you try, Doctor.
What in your opinion is a definition of diabetes?
A. That is a - you have a particularly difficult one from your point
of view.
Q. You pick a simple one. Take dandruff.
A. Well, I will try diabetes. Diabetes is a disorder of metabolism,
which means body chemistry, of such a nature that the body cannot burn
carbohydrates, or sugars, in the normal way. The result is that sugar in
the form of glucose piles up in the bloodstream, spills out in the urine.
And associated with that is an improper metabolism of fat, sometimes leading
to acidosis. That in a sense is the mechanism. But you have to go into
the story, first, of the symptoms of acidosis, of frequent passage of urine,
the effects that a high blood sugar content has on the body and its tendency
to infection. It would be very difficult to give a layman a picture of
diabetes without immediately getting into the symptoms, because there are
other conditions, for example, in which sugar can spill out into the urine
which are not diabetic.
Q. Can we say, Doctor, and then go on to something else, that a psychopathic
personality is a disorder of character which has then, again, many symptoms,
without describing what the symptoms are? In other words, it is a disorder
of the person's did you say mental and emotional make-up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then it has certain, I think you said, variegated symptoms?
A. I spoke of behavior....
[2]
Q. Now, Doctor, when you started to describe the different symptoms
of a person with a psychopathic personality you ran through 12 or so, and
you said chronic, persistent and repetitive lying; stealing, deception;
alcoholism and drug addiction; abnormal sexuality; vagabondage; panhandling.
For our purposes, Doctor, we can eliminate immediately three of those,
can't we -- drug addiction, alcoholism and sexual abnormality? There is
nothing in the hypothetical question that you have that even touches on
any of those?
A. That is right.
Q. Right. So that we have -- the first one I think you talked about
when you started to outline the characteristics was the lying, the repetitive
lying pattern. Doctor, let me ask you, do people who lie necessarily give
to a psychiatrist a symptom of a psychopathic personality just by lying?
A. Well, I have a case in mind of a patient--
Q. I have a number, too. But can you tell me generally, Doctor, whether
people who lie, just that abstract thing, people who lie, would that indicate
to a trained psychiatrist that that person has one of the symptoms of a
psychopathic personality?
A. Obviously not one lie, but a history of repetitive lying over 25
years or so would be evidence in the direction of that diagnosis.
Q. In other words, one lie by itself would mean nothing to you as a
trained psychiatrist?
A. Isolated lie, isolated any event would mean nothing.
Q. Any event would mean nothing?
A. If it were isolated from the rest of the behavior.
Q. Let us suppose an occasional lie to your wife.
A. Pardon?
Q. What would that indicate, Doctor, an occasional lie to your wife
as to whether you actually worked that night
or didn't.
A. What would that indicate?
Q. Would it indicate a symptom of a psychopathic personality?
A. I wouldn't say so.
Q. You wouldn't think so.
A.No.
Q. Let us suppose, Doctor, a taxpayer lied a little bit in his income
tax return on his contributions or expenses. What do you think that would
indicate? A symptom of a psychopathic personality?
A. It could; not necessarily.
Q. It could. It could indicate a symptom?
A. I could indicate a symptom. There would be an awful lot of psychopaths
if that were the criterion.
Q. Supposing, Doctor, you were stopped by a policeman who said that
you were speeding; you told him: that you had a hurry call for a patient,
had to get there by a certain time, and you lied a little bit and you ended
up I with no ticket, no ticket. Would that indicate a symptom I of a psychopathic
personality?
A. Certainly not.
Q. Well, let us suppose that some of us tell our children that there
is a Santa Clause and continue that statement to children over a period
of years until they are adolescent. Would you say that that indicates on
the part of the parents a symptom of psychopathic personality?
A. No, I wouldn't.
Q. Would you say that telling the children for many, many years that
the Stork brings the baby -- would that indicate that the parent perhaps
was manifesting a symptom of psychopathic personality?
A. Well, if the parents believed it I would think it might.
Q. You think that if a parent told his child that the child was brought
by a stork, and that that parent, talking to his or her child, believed
it, that that would be only a psychopathic personality symptom?
A. Oh no; it would be a symptom of much else.
Q. You said it. I am talking, Doctor, about psychopathic personalities,
and I am trying to develop what you mean when you talk about the symptom
of lying; and doesn't it come down to this, Doctor, that if there is a
purpose for the lying, good or bad, but if there is a purpose, that it
is not a symptom at all?
A. Not at all.
Q. Not at all?
A. No. Psychopaths usually have a purpose when they lie.
Q. Yes, but is it a real purpose?
A. Well, it may be a real purpose; it may be a fantasy; it may be very
real; it may be to accomplish the destruction of somebody or some thing.
Q. Well, tell us, Doctor, the purpose of a parent telling a child that
Santa Clause comes at Christmas -- why is that not a psychopathic symptom?
The parent has a purpose.
A. That is an accepted piece of folk mythology, and parents simply take
on what is traditional; it has no malign purpose.
Q. No malign purpose?
A. No.
Q. The purpose has to be malign in order to come within a psychopathic
personality symptom?
A. It does not have to be. It often is.
Q. It often is? How about lying to your wife to avoid an unpleasant
argument?
A. Pretty normal.
Q. Normal?
A. Pretty normal performance.
Q. Some lying is normal, Doctor?
A. In the sense of statistically normal, yes. It is undesirable, I think.
Q. Yes, but consistent with a purpose, Doctor? Let us suppose it is
consistent with a purpose.
A. That doesn't matter. It doesn't change it.
Q. Let us suppose, Doctor, that you were captured in the last war and
you were constantly being plagued in
violation of all of the treaties, and asked questions beyond, your
name and rank, and so forth, asked where you were stationed, how many men
were billeted with you, what you were doing, what the troops were doing,
what they had done last, and so forth, and you consistently told a story
of the most outlandish lies for the purpose of deceiving your captors,
would you say you were evidencing a symptom of psychopathic personality
at that time?
A. No, I would not.
Q. Because you had a definite purpose in lying, isn't that correct,
Doctor?
Q. But it has a purpose. Doctor, wouldn't you say that lying to your
wife rather than to have an argument about something that is inconsequential
is not a psychopathic symptom?
A. Is not?
Q. Is not.
A. Well, you would have to give me the example of what kind of lie and
under what circumstances. You don't make a diagnosis on the basis of an
isolated episode.
Q. In other words, Doctor, don't you have to know what is behind the
reason for the lie in order to form an opinion, as a doctor?
Q. Doesn't it help, then, Doctor, in analyzing the symptoms to find
out what the specific purpose was in lying so as to learn whether or not
it is just the ordinary normal statistical lying, or something else?
A. Yes, it would help.
Q. Now, you assumed, Doctor, that when Mr. Chambers lied to Dean Hawkes
when he went back to Columbia the second time that that was a symptom of
psychopathic personality, did you not?
A. Yes, it was taken into consideration with the letter he wrote to
Mark Van Doren in which he said, "I lied quite simply when I told Dean
Hawkes." That is, a lie without any feeling of shame or guilt or remorse
is more likely to be of this nature, and here he wrote to Mark Van Doren,
"I lied quite simply when I told Dean Hawkes," and so forth and so on.
Q. And, of course, not disclosing the trust or violating the trust that
they had placed in you as an officer; that would not be psychopathic lying?
A. It could be but it does not need to be.
Q. It does not need to be?
A. No.
A. I was trying to save my ---
Q. Not even malign?
A. That is right.
Q. But you have had a specific purpose in mind, the purpose of deceiving
your captors?
A. That is right.
Q. Well, Doctor, he was part of the faculty and the Dean was the boss;
you will go that far, won't you?
A. I guess that is right, yes.
Q. Now, you don't attach any significance to those facts, do you, in
arriving at this conclusion of yours that
Q. In other words, you thought that was a symptom because, one, it was
in writing, and, two, because he used the words "quite simply"?
A. Because he seemed to accept it as a pelfectly acceptable form of
dealing with the Dean of Columbia.
Q. Doctor, you realize, of course, that in the assumed state of facts
he had written this letter to a fellow professor n that is, an associate
of the Dean; he wrote it to Professor Van Doren who was his faculty adviser;
you realize that, of course?
A. Yes I do.
Q. In other words, within a short time after he lied, as he said, quite
simply, he reduced his confession to writing and he made it known to his
faculty adviser, a man associated in the academic circles with the Dean;
you considered those facts, did you not, Doctor, in forming an expert opinion
that that was evidence of a symptom of psychopathic personality?
A. I do not base my diagnosis on one lie.
Q. No, but even on that lie, Doctor, you considered those facts, that
he was telling it in writing to a fellow professor of the Dean, his faculty
adviser?
A. I do not assume that Professor Van Doren was an associate of the
Dean more than an associate of a student who was his advisee.
Q. Well, Doctor, he was part of the faculty and the Dean was the boss;
you will go that far, won't you?
A. I guess that is right, yes.
Q. Now, you don't attach any significance to those facts, do you, in
arriving at this conclusion of yours that those were the circumstances
under which he made his confession known?
A. Well, he did not make a confession. He simply wrote to Van Doren
and said, "I lied quite simply to the Dean and that is how I got back in.
Q. And isn't that a confession? He said, "I lied" and he told somebody,
his adviser--
A. I don't know his relationship to Professor Van Doren. I can't say
whether that is a confession or not. It is a statement of fact, I take
it.
Q. There was testimony that Professor Van Doren was his faculty adviser,
and my question to you is whether you took those facts into consideration
in forming an opinion that this statement of fact that he lied quite simply
was evidence of a symptom of psychopathic personality?
A. I didn't take that into account.
Q. You didn't take it into consideration? If I asked you to now, would
it change your opinion?
A. No, it would not. I have been thinking about it while you were talking.
Q. Doctor, assuming that that is the only lie for a period of 20 years
that you had evidence of in your hypothetical question -- and bear in mind
that was in, let us say, 1922 -- as I remember the hypothetical question
there was no evidence of other lies as such for a period of, say, 20 years,
would that be a symptom of psychopathic personality, a person who told
one lie in 20 years?
A. It depends upon what else he did in those 20 years.
Q. Yes, Doctor, but you were telling the Court and jury about the symptoms
of repetitive lying, and you started out with that as an assumed fact in
1922, and then there was a hiatus, an absence of lying for a period of
20 years; could you honestly, Doctor, as a skilled psychiatrist tell the
jury that that was evidence of repetitive lying -- to use that phrase --
repetitive lying?
A. Obviously one lie can't be evidence of repetitive lying.
Q. Of course not. Assuming, Doctor, that within a very short time he
wrote another letter to the professor and the professor's wife, wrote a
letter jointly --
A. To Van Doren?
Q. Professor Van Doren and Professor Van Doren's wife, and he said that
he joined the Communist Party on February 15, 1925; put that in writing,
in the year 1925; would you say that that fact was evidence of a man who
had some psychopathic personality at that time? In other words, to frankly
admit in writing in the 20s that he joined the Communist Party?
A. That seems to me to have no bearing.
Q. No bearing at all?
A. No.
Q. In other words, a person who frankly tells his former, faculty adviser
that he has joined the Communist Party in writing
A. In 1925?
Q. Yes, -- has no bearing at all on your sum total of facts?
A. Not at that time. It might be different now.
Q. Well, supposing I said that he addressed the letter as "Dear Dorothy
and Mark," would that give you a clue as to the relationship?
A. Well, I presume it was one of friendship, then.
Q. That is, a student to a faculty adviser. Wouldn't you venture the
opinion, Doctor, that it was a little bit higher in the realm of friendship
that most students with their professors?
Q. Wouldn't it be some evidence of his non-lying proclivities?
A. Well, if it was truthful and he
Q. Well, we are assuming, Doctor, that it was truthful. You have assumed
things to be truthful. Let us assume that that is truthful. Wouldn't it
sort of balance the other in some way? Here is a man who writes a letter
to his faculty adviser and says, "I lied quite simply to the Dean; I told
him that I was coming back to school because I wanted to teach history;
actually all I want to do is study it; and then a little while later he
writes to the Dean and says, "I am out and I have joined the C.P."?
A Writes the Dean?
Q. Writes his faculty adviser, rather, and says, "I have joined the
Communist Party"? -- wouldn't one sort of wash out the other, Doctor, in
your mind as a trained psychiatrist?
A. They seem to me to have nothing to do with each other.
Q. Nothing to do?
A. No. I don't know what his relationship with Mr. Van Doren was or
what Mr. Van Doren's attitude was.
A. Oh, certainly.
Q. And wouldn't you say, Doctor, too, that each of the letters would
be an indication of a complete frankness, complete frankness on the part
of Mr. Chambers?
A. With the Van Dorens?
Q. With the Van Dorens.
A. In so far as I know it sounds like a frank statement.
Q. Now, in his application for a passport, Doctor, in the name of Breen,
if you knew that he made that application -- if you assumed that he made
that application to the State Department pursuant to orders as a soldier
in the Communist Party, would you say that that would be evidence or a
symptom of psychopathic personality?
A. I would say it was evidence of a lie.
Q. We are trying to find out whether it was a lie that you could use,
as a trained psychiatrist, to express an
opinion that the man was a psychopathic personality.
A. My opinion is based, as I have said repeatedly, on a whole life pattern
as far as I know it.
Q. Doctor, what we are now trying to show to this jury is that your
opinion is based upon facts which would not give to a psychiatrist that
opinion; and I am trying to show, and asking you now, Doctor, where he
applied for a false passport as a paid functionary of the Communist Party,
using birth certificates supplied to him by his superiors; in other words,
he was acting as a soldier in a cause that he believed in, would you say,
Doctor, that that would be evidence to you as a trained psychiatrist that
there is a symptom of psychopathic personality?
A. It is evidence to me only of another lie or a series of lies.
Q. Doctor, would you in evaluating the lies, if that is the only evidence
which was before you, and there were 25 questions, and each was answered
falsely, would you say that that was 25 lies or just one false lie all
with relation to a false passport?
A. Oh, no, I would group them together around the
general idea of the passport.
Q. You would say it was the passport lie?
A. Except one would pay some attention to the extraordinary details
of the lie.
Q. Doctor, you know as a fact, don't you, that during the war many,
many hundreds of our officers in O.S.S. left this country under false passports
and false names; do you know that as a fact, Doctor?
A. I believe it to be true.
Q. Why, of course. And when those men applied, on instructions from
our Government, to the Passport Division with phony passport material and
ended up with a passport in not their own names, what would they be, Doctor?
Would they be liars?
A. No, they would be loyal American citizens.
Q. And you would not attach any significance at all in analyzing that
as a symptom of psychopathic personality for those men, would you?
A. Not unless I had a history of lying before and after that event.
[3]
January 11, 1950:
Q. Doctor, did you say the only criterion you have to determine whether
a person in a psychopathic personality is whether a person's behavior is
bizzare or queer?... Now, would you say that the study of French and German
by yourself would be bizarre behavior?
A. I would not say that.
Q. Would you say that the slanting of new stories would be bizarre behavior?
A. I think that is an acceptable form of behavior in the journalistic
trade.
Q. So that would not be bizarre?
A. It would be to me but not to the people who do the writing. I am
sure that what I do would be bizarre to them.
Q. Doctor, you said that in determining what is an example of bizarre
behavior is whether or not the reasonable person does it; isn't that the
test more or less?
A. That is pretty much it, yes.
Q. Now, the living in a common law relationship with Ida Dailes -- is
that bizarre? Was it bizarre?
A. I wouldn't say so.
Q. I think you said that leaving Williams College impulsively was bizarre.
A. I think leaving on a night train after having been there two days
and suddenly changing your mind is certainly not very reasonable or deliberate
or the way you would expect a more rational person to behave. That also
is not a conspicuous example of it.
Q. Well, is it bizarre, doctor, under your definition?
A. Relatively.
Q. Relatively?
A. Yes.
Q. When you testified you said that he left -- I think you said he left
impulsively. Did you assume that as one of the facts, that he left impulsively?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, assuming that it was two or three days, and that his roommate
had bought some secondhand furniture to furnish their room, and then one
evening there was sort of a freshman dinner to which they each were invited
and he told his roommate that he did not want to go, that he had a problem
that he had to think out, and he did in fact, go; he told his roommate
that he was going to consult the Scriptures -- would that be bizarre behavior
up that point?
Q. Of course not. Reading the Scriptures would not be bizarre, would
it? .
A. Well, to a man who thinks of himself as an atheist it might be, but
certainly not ordinarily.
Q. Well, Doctor, this was in the beginning of his college career.
A. Yes?
Q. Did you assume that he was an atheist then?
A. No.
Q. SO that reading the Bible in an attempt to solve a problem, you do
not consider bizarre?
A. No, it might be quite the reverse.
Q. What is the reverse of bizarre?
A. Sensible.
Q. Sensible?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that what was bizarre was the fact that he left at midnight
to catch a midnight train. Do all people who catch midnight trains, Doctor,
exhibit bizarre behavior at all?
A. They could. They don't need to necessarily. It depends upon why they
do it.
Q. Doctor, you have been in the Grand Central at midnight, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. All those people running and scurrying for trains, you would not
ascribe to them bizarre behavior?
A. I wouldn't have any idea what the meaning of their behavior was.
Q. Doctor, if a train left at midnight to go to New York and he got
on the midnight train, isn't that what,
reasonable person would do?
A. Yes, if the train left at midnight and he got then one o'clock it
might be bizarre behavior.
Q. Doctor, the testimony is that he got a midnight train nothing bizarre
about that by itself, is there?
A. Nothing whatever.
Q. And I think you said that one who consults the Bible-- I think George
Washington consulted the Bible at Valley Forge when he had a problem, didn't
he?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, Doctor, you said that another evidence bizarre behavior was
the fact that he had written -- I think the phrase you used -- a good many
letters to his roommate, and in one of the letters he asked the roommate
go to the post office and to get another letter and to real dress it
to him or to mail it to him. You did not assume your state of facts, Doctor,
what the contents of those letters were, did you, the six letters?
A. There is certainly nothing bizarre about writing letters to your
ex-roommate, and I did not use that as a
example of bizarre behavior.
Q. You did not?
A. No, not the writing of the letters, no. I did assume--
Q. The bizarre behavior was the writing of the one letter, asking him
to go to the post office and open a letter and re-send it, or something?
A. One letter not addressed either to his own name or to his roommate's
name but to another name.
Q. But if those are all the facts that you know and the jury knows,
Doctor, about that, one letter, is that suffi
cient for you to say that that was bizarre, that that was not what
a reasonable person would do?
A. I don't think a reasonable person would write a letter to somebody
who was not at Williams and who was not his roommate and then ask his roommate
to go to the post office and send the letter back to him.
Q. Well, without anything more, Doctor, do you have enough facts to
describe that as bizarre?
A. I think just the fact that I have stated I would regard as bizarre
behavior.
Q. Really?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, would you describe as bizarre the fact that a person would
save over a period of many years an ordinary window envelope? Do you know
what a window envelope is, Doctor, with a little piece of isinglass so
you can read the address from the letter proper?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that be bizarre behavior, just saving an envelope, that type
of envelope for a long period of time?
A. I would have to know what it was all about. It might be and it might
not be.
Q. Of course. And wouldn't you have to know more about the letters to
really attribute to that one letter
whether or not the action was bizarre or not?
A. I am not talking about the letter; I am talking about writing one
letter to a person under another name and to a person who was not at Williams,
and asking his roommate to get the letter and send it back to him.
Q. Doctor, if you know nothing more about it is that enough for you
to say as a doctor that it is bizarre?
A. Well, it is suggestive.
Q. Suggestive?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what you did describe as bizarre, Doctor, was the giving of
rather important papers, Mr. Chambers
handing over important papers to his wife's nephew, whereas the ordinary,
reasonable, normal person would have put them in a bank. Did you know,
Doctor, or did you assume that that person who received the papers was
an attorney practicing here in New York City and a relative of Mr. Chambers?
Did you know that the papers were handed to him?
A. At that time he was an attorney?
Q. Yes.
A. I have heard that he was a lawyer.
Q. In describing the actions as bizarre do you say now that the giving
of valuable papers to an attorney and telling the attorney to keep these
in a safe place, "and if anything happens to me, disclose them" -- is that
bizarre behavior, Doctor?
A. I think one has to take into account the nature of the papers, what
was involved in the papers; and also the fact that he then testified that
he had forgotten about their existence.
Q. Well, let us treat each separately, Doctor, if we can Do you say
to this Court and jury that when a person gives papers that he attaches
value or significance to an attorney, and the attorney is also a relative,
that that fact manifests bizarre behavior?
A. Not on that assumption, no.
Q. So that it is consistent with those people who would put it in a
bank to give it to an attorney?
A. Of course, you are asking me to assume part of the truth and not
all of the truth. But in so far as you have gone --
Q. Wait just a minute, Doctor. I did not know that you were able to
tell which was part of the truth and which was not part of the truth.
A. By "truth" I mean what I have been asked to assume in the hypothetical
question.
Q. Doctor, assuming that the testimony in this case shows that Mr. Chambers
sometime in 1938 gave some
of these papers that are in evidence here to his wife's nephew, who
was a duly licensed practicing attorney in this city, with instructions
to keep them for safekeeping, and if anything happened to him to disclose
their contents -- now, as far as I have gone I think you have to agree
with mc, Doctor, that that is not bizarre behavior?
A. I do agree with you.
Q. Now, you say what is bizarre is the assumed fact that he said he
had forgotten he had them?
A. That is right. Papers of such tremendous importance.
Q. Now, do we have bizarre behavior evidenced by forgetfulness; in other
words, by the absence of act?
A. Yes.
Q. You do?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you say that it was bizarre behavior when he went in 1948 to
his wife's nephew and asked for what he had given him in 1938 -- is that
bizarre?
A. No.
Q. Now, you have attached significance to the fact and described it
as bizarre behavior, the fact that Mr. Chambers left a typewriter in a
streetcar or elevated in 1940, Doctor, is it bizarre behavior for people
to destroy or to get rid of things, physical chattels that remind them
of the past? Is that bizarre behavior?
A. No. I think abandoning a typewriter on a streetcar which you have
carried here from Baltimore in order to forget the past is not the way
the ordinary man behaves.
Q. You knew, of course, Doctor, or assumed in your state of facts that
he was then working on Time and living on a farm in Maryland, didn 't you?
A. That is right.
Q. And that he commuted each week, stayed in New York a number of days
and then went back to his farm; there was no testimony that he took the
typewriter specifically with him, that he just took it as part of the trip
and abandoned it.
A. Yes.
Q. So the significance you attach is the abandonment on a streetcar
or subway, or wherever it was?
A. That is right.
Q; But the ordinary person, Doctor, who discards something that reminds
him of the past -- is that bizarre
behavior by itself?
A. No, it need not be.
Q. Thousands of women throwaway their wedding rings in Reno, don't they?
A. I would believe it if you told me so.
Q. Well, you know it as a matter of common knowledge, don't you -- as
a fact?
A. I never thought of that but I guess it must be true.
Q. Now, assuming, Doctor, that Mr. Chambers wanted to get rid of this
typewriter because it had been given to him by his Communist conspirators
early in 1930, and it was reminding him of those horrible days when he
was a Communist, but rather than destroy it he wanted to let somebody get
some use of it, and he left it in the streetcar so that somebody could
get use of it, and then he would not have it traced back to him but somebody
would get some use of it -- would you say that that nevertheless was bizarre?
A. Is that what you want me to assume?
Q. Yes.
A. It is certainly unusual behavior.
Q. Yes, but doesn't it also show, Doctor, a man who just can't let things
be destroyed; somebody could get use of a thing like that, and doesn't
that manifests Sort of kindly spirit?
A. If you want me to assume that I will have to assume it.
Q. Well, yes, assuming those are the facts, Doctor.
A. I still think it is very unusual kind of behavior.
Q. Well, doesn't it also express a rather likable spirit too?
A. You might interpret it that way.
Q. Do you?
A. I interpret it as very extraordinary to abandon typewriter on a streetcar.
Q. Now, Doctor, you said another exhibition of bizarre behavior was
the putting of the microfilm, the developed strip and the undeveloped films
in a pumpkin. Can you think of any similar act during our American history
where somebody else did a somewhat similar thing?
A. No. You will have to tell me. I can't remember.
Q. Do you remember, Doctor, during the Revolutionary times when they
put the charter in the charter oak up in Hartford to hide it from the British?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Were the actions of those people at that time bizarre in hiding it
in a tree, just an old paper?
A. Well, that was a very primitive community and in older times, and
they did not have repositories for valuable documents, and I can see the
analogy but I still regard hollowing out a pumpkin and putting microfilms
in it as sufficiently bizarre so that when I read about it I was immediately
arrested by the fact, as were a great many other people, because it is
not the way a modern Twentieth Century human being, even living on a farm,
usually behaves.
Q. Now, Doctor, you have said something there and I don't know whether
or not you meant to say it. You said when you read about it. You are testifying
here exclusively, I take it, on the hypothetical question and your observations
in court?
A. That is right.
Q. And when you read about it you are referring, I take it, to some
newspaper article?
A. That is right.
Q. And that did not interfere with your judgment when you expressed
your opinion as a doctor here, did it?
A. I have done my utmost not to let anything interfere with my judgment.
Q. Well, you did not include the knowledge that you have acquired from
reading newspapers? --
A. No, no.
Q. -- when you gave us your opinion here?
A. Certainly not.
Q. Is it safe to say, Doctor, that you excluded from your mind all extraneous
evidence and relied on your observations and the assumed facts in the hypothetical
question?
A. In so far as that is psychologically possible I have made every effort
to do so.
Q. You say that a man who was living on a farm in 1948, who puts pretty
valuable papers in a pumpkin that
he has hollowed out right by his door, is bizarre?
A. I say the act is bizarre.
Q. The act is bizarre?
A. Because it is unusual. Perhaps there is one other example in history
that you have given.
Q. If, Doctor, you assume that these microfilms were previously in his
house and he moved them from room to room, and that the day that he put
them in the pumpkin was the day that he was going to leave his farm, and
assume further that there were different people in and about the farm looking
for things, wouldn't you say, Doctor, that that was a pretty good hiding
place?
A. It was.
Q. No matter how bizarre it was?
A. It certainly was a good hiding place, yes.
Q. All right. As a matter of fact, don't you remember reading, Doctor,
that when Benedict Arnold sold out West Point and gave the plans to Major
Andre, do you know where he put the plans when he was caught, just up here
by Tarrytown?
A. No, I don't.
Q. He had them in the boot of his shoe, the sale of his boot. Was that
bizarre on the part of an intelligent British officer?
A. No, I wouldn't say so.
Q. Well, how about the mother of Moses hiding the little child in the
bulrushes? Was that bizarre?
A. Well, she could hardly put it in a safe deposit vault.
Q. Now, Doctor, you don't tell us that all things that don't fit in
safe deposit boxes are therefore bizarre, do
you? .
A. No, I don't.
Q. I am asking you, Doctor, whether the action of Moses' mother in putting
the young child in the bulrushes
was bizarre behavior?
A. I don't know the circumstances and I wouldn't know where else she
had to hide the child. If that was the only place, it certainly was not
bizarre.
Q. You know what her fear was, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. There was an edict out to kill all Hebrew children.
A. That is right.
|