Providentia

The Oddfather

He could often be seen leaving his mother's Greenwich Village apartment, dressed either in a bathrobe and pajamas, or in a windbreaker and shabby trousers, but the sight of the two bodyguards accompanying Vincent Gigante at all times, ensured that nobody could dismiss him as just another New York City eccentric.   Dubbed "the Oddfather" for his peculiar mannerisms and longstanding history of bizarre behaviour, Gigante was either genuinely mentally ill or the perpetrator of the longest legal charade in New York's history (it all depended on who you asked).

Born Vincent Louis Gigante in 1928, Gigante was a professional boxer who fought nearly thirty bouts between 1944 and 1947 before abandoning the ring for what would be his real career.   Starting out as a mob enforcer for the Luciano crime family, Gigante (who quickly acquired the nickname of "the Chin") and three of his brothers established themselves as mobsters who became prime enforcers in the Genovese family.

Despite various arrests, including a conviction for heroin trafficking which earned him a seven-year sentence in the 1950s, Vincent Gigante rose to become a capo regime for the local branch of the Genovese family operating out of Greenwich village, not far from his mother's apartment.   Remaining loyal to his family throughout his lifetime, they also rallied around him (including his brother, Louis, who had stayed out of the Mafia to become a priest).    Vincent eventually rose to the very top of the Genovese family after  his mentor, Philip Lombardo (a.k.a. "Benny Squints") stepped down due to ill-health in 1981.  He beat out his main rival for the position, Anthony Salerno, when Salerno received a life sentence for racketeering charges.  From 1981 until his death in 2005, Vincent Gigante controlled some of New York's most notorious rackets including bookmaking, loansharking,  construction companies, and various other enterprises.  At the peak of his career, he was believed to have handled as much as $100 million dollars in legal and illegal revenue.

Though state and federal agencies were well aware that "the Chin" was one of the most powerful crime bosses in the United States, proving it in court was another matter.    Even though mob deserters testified about Gigante's criminal activities and his involvement in cartels that rigged contract bids across New York City and Westchester county,  his unorthodox management style established him as a very different kind of Mafia don.   In 1986, FBI agents maintaining constant surveillance during one of their investigations observed Gigante leaving his mother's apartment in seedy clothing until he as driven to the townhouse owned by his common-law wife where he changed into more expensive clothing and do business with associates.   The next morning, he would often be seen back in his seedy clothing and returning to his mother's apartment or another family home.   He remained acutely paranoid of FBI wiretaps and electronic listening devices and rarely left his home unoccupied for long for fear that FBI agents would plant bugs.

"It was hard to understand what enjoyment he got out of being a mob boss," said Ronald Goldstock, the former director of the New York State Organized Crime Task Force of Gigante. "His only pleasure appeared to be the pure power he exercised."   His reclusive lifestyle ensured that he would remain in power longer than any other mob boss during that same era.     Despite his unorthodox management style, he certainly had no problem resorting to violence as needed.   He went on trial in 1958 for the attempted murder of Genovese family boss Frank Costello but was acquitted when Costello refused to testify against him (the code of silence known as omerta prevailed at all times, even with assassination attempts).   Though he was widely suspected of ordering other murders, prosecutors were never able to prove anything in court.

Probably his most well-known trick for avoiding prosecution was to feign insanity successfully for years.   Beginning in 1969,  Gigante maintained an elaborate pretense which often involved him being seen around Greenwich Village wearing only his pajama, robe and slippers while mumbling to himself and generally appearing to be just another New York street person.  In a masterful performance,  Gigante ensured that all public appearances reinforced the image he maintained for himself.   Whenever he went on trial, his defense attorneys produced medical experts who testified that he suffered from various  diagnoses ranging from schizophrenia to dementia pugilistica dating back to his boxing days.    Various family members including his wife and mother testified on his behalf verifying that he was mentally ill and incapable of standing trial.   His brother Louis even went so far as to accuse prosecutors of engaging in a vendetta due to prejudice against Italian-Americans.

His Mafia colleagues certainly had no doubts about the sanity of "the Oddfather."   Even his arch-nemesis, John Gotti, grudgingly said of Gigante that he was "crazy, like a fox" while an FBI supervisor quoted in Gigante's obituary said that "He was probably the most clever organized-crime figure I have ever seen."   This, despite his lawyers frequently insisting in court that their client had a below-normal IQ (in the 69-72 range) which meant he was too mentally disabled to be involved in the Mafia.

Not only did Vincent Gigante produce his own experts, but he also successfully fooled prosecution experts as well.   Forensic authorities such as Thomas Gutheil of Harvard Medical School, Donald Franklin Klein of Columbia Medical School, and Abraham Halpern of New York Medical College, among others, assessed Gigante over the years and  subsequently testified that he was unfit to stand trial.   His habit of appearing in court in pajamas, a robe and his familiar cap were all part of the elaborate scam he maintained to stay out of jail and it worked for decades.  Even during sanity hearings in 1996 when several high-level Mafia defectors testified that Gigante appeared perfectly sane during various meetings, his lawyers provided testimony from psychiatrists and psychologists attesting to his mental illness.  They  also presented evidence that Gigante had been institutionalized 28 times between 1969 and 1985 for hallucinations and "dementia rooted in organic brain damage."    

According to Dr. Eugene D'Amamo, who acted as his primary treating psychiatrist from 1973 to 1989, Gigante had been "diagnosed since 1969 as suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid type with acute exacerbations which resulted in hospitalization."  Along with daily doses of diazepam and chlorpromazine, he also had several operations on his heart which complicated the medical picture considerably.   That many of his repeated hospitalizations for mental illness were conveniently timed to avoid criminal charges hardly escaped notice.   When he was charged with racketeering in 1990, he still successfully delayed the trial for years while the question of his sanity was studied

The judge in the  case, Eugene Nickerson, finally ruled that Gigante was fit to stand trial and he was later sentenced to 12 years in prison (he managed to beat the charges relating to the attempted killing of fellow Mafia don, John Gotti).    Gigante sat quietly in his wheelchair as the verdict was read out.  Even in prison however, he continued to run the Genovese family with his orders relayed through visiting relatives.   The insanity pretense only ended after he was charged with obstruction of justice and racketeering in 2002.  His son Andrew, who had acted as his lieutenant while he was in prison, was charged along with him.    At long last, Vincent Gigante admitted to successfully fooling the doctors for 30 years as part of his guilty plea which earned him and his son reduced sentences.    The plea meant three extra years added to his current sentence and was regarded by many as an unprecedented deal for a Mafia don.   In talking about the guilty plea afterward, his lawyer Benjamin Brafman said that "I think you get to a point in life - I think everyone does - where you become too old and too sick and too tired to fight."

Vincent Gigante died in federal prison on December 19, 2005.  Not long before his death, he had been transferred to an acute care hospital to stabilize his condition before he was returned to prison where he died ten days later.    Father Louis Gigante later blamed his brother's death on the medical care he had received in prison.   In Vincent Gigante's obituary, he was quoted as saying that he had visited his brother nineteen times and "there wasn't a day he didn't suffer."   Prison officials defended the care Vincent received though the stress of incarceration likely shortened his life. 

Whatever the circumstances of his death, Gigante's funeral was definitely low-key, much as he lived his life.   As the last of the old-time Godfathers, Vincent "the Chin" Gigante's death marked the end of an era.  The Oddfather would be missed.  

The Elizabeth Canning Mystery

It is still one of the great legal controversies of the 18^th century. 

On January 1, 1753, an 18-year old girl named Elizabeth Canning disappeared from a country lane in what is now the heart of London.   Canning, who worked as a maid in London, had been spending New Year’s Day with her aunt and uncle in Whitechapel and was walking back to London when she disappeared.   After Canning failed to arrive in London, her employer, John Wintlebury, contacted her mother who then raised the alarm.  A volunteer search consisting of friends, family members and Wintlebury, began investigating the disappearance.  Since there was no organized police force in London at the time, it was up to the volunteers to knock on doors, distribute advertisements and flyers, and offer a reward for any information leading to her safe return. 

While someone nearby had reported hearing a scream at the time of her disappearance, the search would peter out after several weeks.   On January 29 however, Elizabeth Canning reappeared at her mother’s house in obvious distress.   The normally neatly-dressed Canning appeared so bedraggled that her mother fainted on recognizing her daughter and seeing her condition.  Along with bruises on her face and body and a bad cut near one ear,  Canning was also half-starved and wearing only a petticoat and a bedgown.   Neighbours and family members came to the house and immediately began questioning her about what happened.

They eventually managed to piece together a coherent story despite Canning being obviously traumatized by her experience.  According to her account,  she had been walking along the country lane when she was attacked by two thugs near Bedlam Hospital.   They robbed her of her money along with the nice dress she had been wearing.   After striking her on the head, the thugs dragged her to a nearby large house while she was in a semi-conscious state.  At the house, she was turned over to a group of women who then tried to force her into prostitution and locked her in a hayloft when she refused.   She was left there for weeks with nothing but a loaf of bread, a pitcher of water, and the mince pie that she had been carrying.  Though she eventually managed to escape, she injured her ear in the process.

After being given some time to recover, she was questioned by an Alderman who had doubts about her story but agreed to issue a warrant.  Again due to the lack of a formal police force, the search was carried out by volunteers.   To lend a semi-official status to the search, the Lord Mayor, Sir Crisp Gascoyne, supervised the search.    Despite her frail condition, Elizabeth Canning was taken to a house that matched her description of where she had been held house to see if she could identify her abductors. 

All of the residents of that house were arrested and arraigned a few days later.  The Justice of the Peace in question, who happened to be the famous author Henry Fielding, signed the arrest warrants.  The mistress of the house, Susannah Wells (who preferred to be known as “Mother Wells”) and a second woman, Mary Squires, were accused by Canning of stealing her corsets.   Wells was also accused of “keeping a disorderly house” (another name for brothel).   Since Squires was widely suspected of being a “gypsy” (though her exact ethnic origin was never clear), Canning’s accusation was considered proof enough and she was later went on trial for theft.   Squires’ son, John, was also suspected of being one of the men who had abducted Canning in the first place though he managed to avoid arrest.

Despite the international publicity the case generated, Sir Crisp Gascoyne decided to investigate further.  Elizabeth Canning’s description of the house had more than a few discrepancies, especially the room where she had supposedly been held.  Mary Squires, for her part, produced witnesses who testified that she was in another town at the time of Canning’s alleged abduction.  She also had a remarkable appearance, including an extremely large nose and an inflated lower lip, which Elizabeth Canning never mentioned.

Despite these discrepancies, Elizabeth Canning refused to recant her statement.  What followed was a controversy that polarized English society.  On one side were the Canningites, Elizabeth’s supporters, and on the other side were the “Egyptians” (based on the then-popular notion that gypsies came from Egypt).    Pubs across the country became embroiled in fights over the case and large sums of money were raised on both sides, whether to defend or convict Mary Squires. It also became a celebrated cause in literary circles with Henry Fielding, Tobias Smollett and Voltaire each weighing in on the case.   Things became so heated that the Lord Mayor himself was dragged from his coach and physically assaulted by a mob of  Canning’s supporters. 

After going on trial, Susannah Wells was publicly branded with the letter T on her thumb (T standing for theft) and sentenced to six months in prison.   Mary Squires was sentenced to be hanged.    Afterward, Elizabeth Canning was praised as a public hero and she was given a tidy sum of money courtesy of her supporters.    Dissatisfied with the verdict, Sir Crisp Gascoyne reopened the investigation.  After questioning one house resident whose testimony had been the most damaging against Mary Squires, Gascoyne managed to break down her story.   He also investigated Squires' alibi and declared himself satisfied that she had been telling the truth.

Based on this investigation and his doubts about Elizabeth Canning’s story, he ordered her arrest for perjury and recommended that Mary Squires be released.  Considering the reasonable doubt in the case, King George II granted a stay of execution for Mary Squires (and eventually a full pardon).   All of this outraged the Canningites and some of them even threw stones at the King’s coach.  

It hardly ended there though.   John Myles, the leader of the Canningites, arranged to have the men who had provided Mary Squires with an alibi charged with perjury.   They were quickly found not guilty and released.    To avoid arrest, Canning dropped out of sight and only turned herself in after a new Lord Mayor was installed.    Her trial began in April, 1754, and went on for  seven days with newspapers running pro- and con- editorials of the case.   After a narrow vote,  she was convicted of “Perjury, wilful and corrupt” and sentenced to one month in prison to be followed by her transportation to America for seven years. 

The verdict did nothing to settle the debate over whether Canning had been telling the truth though it thoroughly ruined Crisp Gascoyne’s political career since much of the outrage was linked to his investigation.  Still, being sent to America was not that much of a hardship for Canning since her supporters raised enough money to make her voyage comfortable.  They also supplied her with money for a new start.

After arriving in Connecticut, she became part of the household of Reverend Elisha Williams.  Technically an indentured servant, she was treated more like a member of the family.   After Williams’ death in 1755, Canning married John Treat, a grandson of a former governor of Connecticut.  They would have four children together before her death in 1773.  She is buried somewhere in Wethersfield, Connecticut though the exact location of her grave has been lost to history.

Did Elizabeth Canning commit perjury?   The case demonstrates many of the problems investigators face today when dealing with traumatized witnesses.  Some later commentators on the case have suggested that Canning may have experienced a form of post-traumatic amnesia with many details she “recalled” afterward being implanted in her mind by overeager supporters.  Modern investigators are specifically trained to avoid leading questions to avoid contaminating victim recall which may have happened in Elizabeth Canning’s case.  

Whatever the actual facts of her disappearance, Elizabeth Canning’s case demonstrates the power that the media had, long before the invention of the Internet.  Political careers were made and broken by newspaper editorials over the case.  No real solution for what really happened in 1753 has ever been put forward and John Paget’s described the case as “in truth, perhaps, the most complete and most inexplicable Judicial Puzzle on record”. 

And it still is today.

How Stable is Loneliness Across the Lifespan?

Individuals feel lonely when they perceive a discrepancy between their aspired and their actually experienced amount of closeness and intimacy in social relationships. In a new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, researchers we disentangled developmental constancy factors, time-varying factors such as person-environment transactions, and stochastic mechanisms as sources of interindividual differences in loneliness by applying STARTS models in nationally representative samples from Germany (n = 13,397), Switzerland (n = 6,599), Australia (n = 30,496), and The Netherlands (n = 12,810). Across the 4 studies, they found trait-like sources reflecting developmental constancy factors and the influence of time-varying factors to account for 19–43% and 23–30% of interindividual differences in loneliness, respectively. Depending on the type of measurement instrument, state-like stochastic mechanisms accounted for 30% to 55% of interindividual differences, whereby multi-item measures were less affected by stochastic mechanisms. They found gradual sex differences but considerable differences between age groups regarding the amount of interindividual differences in loneliness accounted for by the three sources. Taken together, the results demonstrate that interindividual differences in loneliness are to a large degree trait-like. Based on these findings, the authors discuss implications for theory and measurement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

For the abstract

Gun Related Suicides Continue to be Ignored

Despite the oft-quoted slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people",  more than half of all suicides committed in the United States involve guns.   According to Bennett L. Gershman of New York's Pace Law School, of the 38,000 suicides committed in the United States last year, more than half were gun-related.  By contrast, only 9,000 gun-related homicides occurred that same year.   The actual figures also fail to take suicide attempts into account which can push the numbers far higher.

In an opinion piece he wrote for the Journal News, Professor Gershman pointed out that gun-related suicide remains the most popular suicide method.  Despite this however, actual discussion of the role that access to guns has in suicide remains curiously muted.   "The principal cause of gun suicide relates to the increasing availability and access to guns, especially guns in homes where persons live who have psychiatric disorders, are depressed, impulsive, and aggressive. Why persons attempt suicide is a critical question", he says.  "But also critical is how people attempt suicide, which often determines whether they live or die."   While most gun-related suicide attempts are fatal, incidents of people surviving despite severe injuries have been seen as well.   I recall dealing with several cases of this when I worked in the prison system (including one prisoner missing part of his face) and the medical issues involved can be extreme.

Research which Professor Gershman describes appears to bear this out.   Suicide by gun has exceeded automobile accidents as the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States and is also the fastest-growing suicide method.     A 2008 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found a powerful link between gun ownership and suicide with persons with guns in their home being sixteen times more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners.  States with the highest percentage of gun ownership also have the highest percentage of gun-related suicides.   According to Harvard School of Public Health professor,  David Hemenway,  “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”  

Despite calls by leading medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics to remove guns from homes to prevent possible suicide use, successful lobbying by the National Rifle Association has blocked most initiatives to prevent gun deaths as well as research into gun-related suicides.   As a result, Congress has blocked funding by the Center for Injury Prevention and Control into suicide research, especially research into gun-related deaths.   In the meantime, the deaths are continuing and are likely to rise even further in the years to come.

Posted at 08:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Despite the oft-quoted slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people",  more than half of all suicides committed in the United States involve guns.   According to Bennett L. Gershman of New York's Pace Law School, of the 38,000 suicides committed in the United States last year, more than half were gun-related.  By contrast, only 9,000 gun-related homicides occurred that same year.   The actual figures also fail to take suicide attempts into account which can push the numbers far higher.

In an opinion piece he wrote for the Journal News, Professor Gershman pointed out that gun-related suicide remains the most popular suicide method.  Despite this however, actual discussion of the role that access to guns has in suicide remains curiously muted.   "The principal cause of gun suicide relates to the increasing availability and access to guns, especially guns in homes where persons live who have psychiatric disorders, are depressed, impulsive, and aggressive. Why persons attempt suicide is a critical question", he says.  "But also critical is how people attempt suicide, which often determines whether they live or die."   While most gun-related suicide attempts are fatal, incidents of people surviving despite severe injuries have been seen as well.   I recall dealing with several cases of this when I worked in the prison system (including one prisoner missing part of his face) and the medical issues involved can be extreme.

Research which Professor Gershman describes appears to bear this out.   Suicide by gun has exceeded automobile accidents as the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States and is also the fastest-growing suicide method.     A 2008 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found a powerful link between gun ownership and suicide with persons with guns in their home being sixteen times more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners.  States with the highest percentage of gun ownership also have the highest percentage of gun-related suicides.   According to Harvard School of Public Health professor,  David Hemenway,  “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”  

Despite calls by leading medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics to remove guns from homes to prevent possible suicide use, successful lobbying by the National Rifle Association has blocked most initiatives to prevent gun deaths as well as research into gun-related suicides.   As a result, Congress has blocked funding by the Center for Injury Prevention and Control into suicide research, especially research into gun-related deaths.   In the meantime, the deaths are continuing and are likely to rise even further in the years to come.

The Case of Mary Harris

On January 31, 1865, Adoniram Judson Burroughs, a clerk working in the U.S. Treasury building in Washington, D.C., was leaving for home with another co-worker when he was stopped by a woman who had apparently been waiting for him.    As witnesses later reported, Burroughs exited his office to where the woman was waiting and they spoke briefly. It was then that the woman , twenty-two year-old Mary Harris, pulled out the gun she was carrying and shot Burroughs at close range.  Realizing that he was dead, she then walked off in a perfectly business-like manner and made no attempt to resist when a watchman stopped her before she even exited the building.  She was arrested and charged with murder that same day.  

When police asked Harris about her reason for shooting Burroughs, the story she told would soon propel her into one of the most sensational trials of the decade. In her statement to police, she said that she was born in Burlington, Iowa and had met Burroughs while working in a hat-making shop there.  She was only nine years old at the time and he was more than twice her age but they soon fell in love.    Not only did he provide her with money to continue her education but he also taught her how to pass in high society as would befit the kind of cultured wife that he wanted.   

When Mary turned  thirteen, Burroughs asked her to go with him when he started a new job in Chicago but she declined.    Instead, they began a seven-year correspondence during which Burroughs made repeated promised of marriage (no word on what Mary's immigrant parents likely thought of all this).   

In 1863, when Mary was twenty years old, she decided that she was ready and moved to Chicago to be with Burroughs though the promised wedding never materialized.   Soon afterward, Burroughs announced that he had found a new job as a clerk in the U.S. Treasury Department and he promptly moved to Washington, D.C .   Again, Mary was left to wait though she believed Burroughs' promise that he would send for her.

Not long after the move, Burroughs stopped writing to her.  Also, around this time, Mary received two letters from someone who only gave his name as J.P. Greenwood.  Though she had no idea who wrote the letters, they apparently asked  Harris to meet him at a house of assignation (an old name for brothel).  When Mary showed the letters to her then-employer Louisa Devlin, it was Devlin who concluded that they had been written by Burroughs as part of a bizarre scheme to blacken Mary's reputation and to call off the wedding.  Though she didn't want to believe that Burroughs would do this, she soon learned that he had become engaged to another woman. 

According to what Mary would later tell her doctors, the shock of this betrayal led her to develop serious mood swings along with violent episodes of hysteria.   She also bought a gun though she was unclear whether she planned to use it on Burroughs or herself.   In January of the following year, she went to the railway station and purchased a ticket to Washington, D.C., apparently without even bothering to bring any luggage.   Immediately after arriving in D.C.,, she went straight to the Treasury building to confront Burroughs directly.   She then shot Burroughs as soon as he confirmed that he was about to be married to another woman.  

While waiting for the case to come to trial,  atwo prominent lawyers, Joseph Haversham. Bradley and Daniel Voorhees offered their services in her defense.   While Mary had no money to pay them, they both agreed to work pro bono on her behalf.  Though there was no question about her shooting Burroughs, her lawyers had her plead not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.   To build their case, the lawyers read many of Burroughs' letters to Mary in open court so the jury could hear about his declarations of affection and promises to marry her.   The letters from J.P. Greenwood were also introduced as evidence, along with Louisa Devlin who testified on Mary's behalf.

The lawyers also brought  in different medical experts who testified on their client's behalf including Dr. Charles Nichols, Superintendent of Government Hospital and later president of the American Psychiatric Association.  It was Dr. Nichols who testified that Mary had been insane at the time of the killing due to be "crossed in love" as well as suffering from "painful dysmenorrhea"(menstrual problems).    Another doctor testifying on the role that Mary's "female troubles" played in her crime was Dr. Calvin Fitch who confirmed the dysmenorrhea diagnosis and added that  "uterine irritability is one of the most frequent causes of insanity." 

But the prosecution remained skeptical about Mary's presumed insanity.   Not only did she have a clear motive for the killing but she also demonstrated premeditation by purchasing the gun before meeting Burroughs.  The prosecution also brought in their own experts including  Frederick May, M.D., Past Chair of Surgery, Columbia College. 

 It was May who  testified that Mary had shot Burroughs while she "laboured under a deranged intellect, paroxysmally deranged, produced by moral causes."   Also appearing for the prosecution was  William P. Johnston, M.D., Professor of Obstetrics and Diseases of Woman and Children, Columbia College who stated: "We consider an individual suffering from hysteria as irresponsible for any act which she might commit."   While they questioned the dysmenorrhea diagnosis, the doctors did little to sway the jury and it was hardly a surprise that the jury only needed five minutes to declare Mary not guilty.

Despite her acquittal, Mary Harris still had to deal with the notoriety from the trial. Not only was she forced to travel under an assumed name as she returned to her home town, but she also had to deal with rumours about her relationship with her defense lawyer Joseph Bradley (despite his being twice her age).   Not only had she openly kissed Bradley after the verdict but he carried her out of the courtroom since she was too overcome to walk on her own (one wit wrote that Bradley would be in imminent danger of being shot himself if he refused to marry his client).  

Whether due to the adverse publicity or the guilt of killing Burroughs, Mary soon returned to Washington and became an inmate at Saint Elizabeth's Hospital where she would remain for over twelve years.   Though there are no records remaining concerning her time in the hospital,  the few newspaper stories covering her post-acquittal life suggest that she wasn't under any real constraint and was considered a low-risk inmate.   She was even allowed to leave the hospital for  months at a time, often visiting family or staying at nearby resorts.   It likely helped that both of her lawyers were politically prominent and continued to have an active interest in her welfare.  

Finally, Joseph Bradey, who had become a judge by that time, managed to secure Mary's release from the hospital.   To the surprise of all his friends and colleagues (not to mention the children from his first marriage), Bradley married his former client not long after her release.   Despite his literally being twice her age (he was eighty and she was forty) and being in poor health, the marriage was apparently a successful one and they remained together until his death in 1887.   As to what became of Mary Harris Bradley after that, I haven't been able to determine.

So why was Mary Harris able to escape being convicted for Adoniram Judson Burrough's murder?   For that matter, why was the plea of temporary insanity accepted by a jury who might have otherwise been justifiably suspicious of medical experts invoking terminology such as "painful dysmenorrhea"? 

Though the insanity defense continues to be controversial even today, it was especially controversial during the late nineteenth century as courts tried to grapple with the M'Naghten decision in the U.K. and how it might apply in the American justice system.  Though there were numerous cases in which the insanity defense was used, almost all of them involved male defendants who were more easily dealt with by the courts. 

Given that Mary faced the death penalty for her crime, being a woman may have well worked in her favour, especially considering no woman had been hanged by the U.S. federal government up to that time (and the crime being committed in Washington, D.C. gave it federal jurisdiction).    

Considering the reluctance of the court to hang Mary Harris, there is a certain irony that the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln took place while her case was still coming to trial and another woman, Mary Suratt, went on trial for her role in the assassination conspiracy.  But there was no acquittal for her and she was hanged just days before Mary Harris' acquittal.   

Perhaps Mary Suratt's lawyers should have gone with the dysmenorrhea defense...

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hanged Man

Is it possible to bring a drowning victim back to life?

Given the numerous cases of drowning that occurred in 18th century London and the lack of any proper system of saving drowning victims at that time,  the need for a new organization to teach resuscitation techniques seemed desperately needed.    Inspired by a rescue organization in the Netherlands that had been founded years earlier, Dr. William Hawes  and another physician, Thomas Cogan, founded the Royal Humane Society in 1774 to promote training in first aid and artificial respiration for drowning victims.   To advertise the potential benefits of artificial respiration, Hawes and Cogan hit on a rather novel scheme.  They offered a cash reward to anyone who would bring them a drowning victim that had been taken from the water anywhere within thirty miles of London (Hawes paid the reward out of his own pocket).  The Royal Humane Society would later serve as a model for similar organizations around the world.

As part of their effort to improve existing medical techniques, Hawes and Cogan approached the famous surgeon, John Hunter,  for guidance.  A highly distinguished medical researcher and surgeon, Hunter was an obvious choice.    Being blunt and argumentative by nature, Hunter had no problem challenging existing views on when death occurred and was forthright in presenting the fledgling Humane Society (and later the Royal Society) with his own views on resuscitation.  

Doctor John Hunter was certainly the right man for the job.   A brilliant anatomist and researcher, his medical expertise was in constant demand.  Among Hunter's patients were Benjamin Franklin (who had consulted him for bladder problems) and Adam Smith (hemorrhoids).  Hunter's unorthodox methods made him the envy of all his fellow surgeons and his own outspoken manner earned him any number of enemies as well.   Among other things, he also became an authority on venereal disease and even went so far as to inoculate himself with tissue taken from a patient to test his theories.  Hunter contracted syphilis and gonorrhea as a result and, unfortunately, used his infection to argue that syphilis and gonorrhea were essentially the same disease (they aren't and this misconception would linger for decades). 

Though the medical science surrounding resuscitation was still in its infancy,  Hunter's insights were certainly inspired.  He stressed that drowning victims should not automatically be assumed dead and that "only the suspension of the actions of life has taken place".    In treating the drowning victim, Hunter recommended aggressive measures including using a double bellows to force air into the drowning victim's lungs, applying stimulating vapours to the nose, keeping the body warm and a vigorous massage in essential oils.  When all else failed, Hunter advised the use of electrical stimulation to the heart.  He also argued that resuscitation should be viewed scientifically with a notebook on hand so that the physician could carefully record what worked and what didn't in reviving the patient. 

To test his own resuscitation methods, John Hunter turned to a different source.  Through his years of dissecting executed criminals, Hunter knew that hangmen were often fairly sloppy with their workmanship on the gallows.   This was long before the invention of the "Marwood drop" which ensured that convicts died quickly and cleanly of a broken neck.   During Hunter's day,  convicts being executed were usually only given enough rope to slowly strangle to death as their oxygen was cut off.   Even then, death was not assured and there were cases of executed convicts waking up after being believed dead.     The notion that an executed criminal could be successfully revived appealed to Hunter and a famous case then working its way through the English courts provided him with the perfect opportunity.

The Reverend William Dodd was never your typical clergyman.  Ordained an Anglican priest in 1753, his flamboyant lifestyle and manner made him a popular figure in British society  and earned him the nickname of the "Macaroni Parson" (macaroni was a popular slang term for fashionable).  While being forced to leave England after disgracing himself by attempting to use bribery to gain a lucrative position for himself, Dodd returned to England after a short time abroad.  Unfortunately, Dodd's extravagant lifestyle and financial problems continued and he was later caught out in a scheme in which he attempted to defraud a wealthy former pupil of thousands of pounds to clear his own debts. 

Since forgery and fraud were capital offenses in those days, Dodd was quickly arrested and went on trial for his life.    He confessed to the crime and was sentenced to death despite pleas for leniency from prominent figures such as Samuel Johnson.   There was a last-ditch appeal for a Royal Pardon (including a petition with 23,000 signatures) but Dodd went to the gallows on June 27, 1777.   

Given that William Dodd had been an early supporter of the Humane Society, John Hunter was well aware of the details of the case.   As Dodd was being led up the gallows at Tyburn, Hunter and his Humane Society colleagues were waiting at an undertaker's establishment with all the tools needed for the revival.    While Hunter himself never wrote about his attempt at reviving Dodd, a fellow Royal Society member, Charles Hutton, later provided an account of what happened next.

Despite Hunter's attempts to get Dodd's body as soon after the execution as possible, the huge number of people in attendance made that impossible.  Due to  the pressing crowds,  Dodd was left hanging for at least an hour before being taken down while the hearse took an additional forty minutes to deliver the body to the waiting Hunter.   Although Hunter and his colleagues were dismayed by the delays, they proceeded to work on Dodd's body with "all means possible for the reanimation".  Unfortunately, the attempt was a total failure and Hunter eventually admitted defeat.    Dodd's body was released for burial and that was the end of it.

Except...

For years after Dodd's execution, there was a lingering rumour that Hunter hadn't failed and that Dodd had been successfully revived.   The press recorded various "Dodd sightings" throughout the United Kingdom and stories of the "Macaroni Parson" cheating the gallows persisted.  As recently as 1794,  a Scottish newspaper reported that Dodd was living in Glasgow "happily beyond the reach of his enemies".

As for John Hunter, he moved on to other things.   Along with his legendary fame as a surgeon, he also amassed one of the most amazing collections of medical and natural history specimens in Europe (including the skeleton of the Irish giant, Charles Byrne) which he put on display in a custom-built teaching museum at his home in Leicester Square.   Following Hunter's death in 1793 (due to an angina attack likely linked to his syphilis-weakened heart), his collection of papers and specimens were purchased by the government and presented to the Company of Surgeons (now the Royal College of Surgeons).   Visitors to the Royal College of Surgeons at London's Lincoln's Inn Fields can still see Hunter's vast collection (as part of the College's even more extensive museums). 

It is quite an experience for those with a taste for the macabre.

Are Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) psychopaths dangerous, untreatable, and without conscience? A systematic review of the empirical evidence.

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, Neumann, & Mokros 2018) scales are among the most widely used forensic assessment tools. Their perceived utility rests partly on their ability to assess stable personality traits indicative of a lack of conscience, which then facilitates behavioral predictions useful in forensic decisions. In a systematic review recently published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, researchers evaluate the empirical evidence behind 3 fundamental justifications for using the PCL scales in forensics, namely, that they are empirically predictive of (1) criminal behavior, (2) treatment outcomes, and (3) a lack of conscience. We found the PCL scales can predict criminal behavior to a statistically significant degree, though with important limitations. We found no evidence of PCL psychopathy being predictive of treatment and rehabilitation outcomes. The researchers found no evidence of PCL psychopathy being predictive of a lack of conscience. These findings disprove widespread beliefs about PCL psychopathy among forensic practitioners

For the abstract

Melbourne Samurai Killer Declared Mentally Impaired by Court

A Melbourne man who became a wanted fugitive after killing his brother with a samurai sword has been found not guilty of murder due to mental impairment. 

Jonathan Dick, 42, slashed his brother David to death with a knife and samurai sword at Melbourne's Westfield Doncaster shopping centre  on February 3,2017.   He then went on the run until reemerging in August of the following year in an attempt to kill long-time friend David Cammarata with a pick hammer outside his home.  He gave no reason for the attack aside from telling Cammarata that he "had this coming."   Following this attack, he stayed hidden until August 19, 2019 when Cammarata and another man spotted him near a car park.  Both men managed to restrain Dick until police could arrive.  Investigators later found a hammer, knife and pair of gloves in a bucket that Dick was carrying. 

During Dick's trial, the court was told that the man suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and  that he was  predestined to kill his brother , apparently according to instructions from their father.   As he told psychiatrists, Dick was convinced that people would die if he failed to kill his brother and that, following the murder, he would be transported into the future to avoid prosecution.   He also reportedly had a series of false memories dating back to childhood in which his brother and David Cammarata  had taken part in a schoolyard attack on him which was also linked to the Ku Klux Klan and Hells Angels biker group.   Other bizarre delusions he reported dealt with aliens, hip hop records, and the events of September 11, 2001.  

According to the two forensic psychiatrists who assessed him,  Dick's condition had improved significantly while in custody due to medication and he no longer believed the delusions .  As one of these forensic psychiatrists, Rajan Darjee,  told the court.  "He was also quite confused because for quite a period of years, these kind of bizarre memories had been as much memories to him as his true biographical memories," Dr Darjee added.  The court also heard that were at least three attempts to obtain mental health treatment in 2012, 2013 and 2015 over Dick's delusions and behaviour.

In handing down his decision concerning Mr. Dick,  Justice Lex Lasry said the evidence was clear that by 2012 Mr Dick experienced "bizarre, grandiose, self-referential and persecutory delusions....I am satisfied on the unchallenged evidence of the two professional witnesses that at the time of these three offences the accused was suffering from a mental impairment," Justice Lasry added that "he did not know what he was doing was wrong...I therefore direct a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment be recorded in relation to all three charges."

For now, Dick will remain at a mental health unit in the jail where he is being held  though he  is expected to be transferred to a secure mental health facility for treatment.  Justice Lasry is set to rule on where Mr Dick is held and the duration of his treatment in the coming months.

For more information

 

 

The Medical Menstrual Menace

For all that the prevailing view of 19th century men was that women were "the weaker sex", not every woman was willing to agree.   Despite the formidable barriers placed in their path, women managed to force their way into the most unexpected places.  And that included any kind of medical training for women.   Given that such training would involve exposing women students to material deemed inappropriate for their gender, most medical schools automatically rejected any women applicants.  

By the mid-1850s however, things began to change.   Along with the example of Florence Nightingale and her fellow nurses tending wounded soldiers during the Crimean war, Elizabeth Blackwell made medical history by being the first woman to graduate from a medical school in 1849 and the first to be placed on the United Kingdom Medical Register in 1859.  Along with her sister Emily, Blackwell helped mentor a new generation of women medical students, as well as promoting the cause of medical education for women in general.

Not surprisingly, there was still considerable opposition.  One of the most outspoken of the doctors opposing medical education for women was Edward H. Clarke of Harvard University.  And, of course, being a doctor, his arguments focused on the medical reasons for why women shouldn't become doctors.  In his 1873 book, Sex and Education, Clarke emphasized that women had the right to do anything of which they were physically capable.   But it was the phrase "physically capable" that was the sticking point for him.

As Clarke pointed out, the development of the female reproductive system placed strains on the body which prevented them from the kind of intellectual development seen in boys going through puberty.   Since the nervous system couldn't do "two things well at the same time,"  females needed to concentrate primarily on their physical development to ensure their health.  Though Clarke was careful in how he worded his views, the implication seems clear enough:  Women who receive the kind of higher education that men do risk developing various health problems including "neuralgia, uterine disease, hysteria, and other derangements of the nervous system" because their overactive brains were using up the physical resources needed for proper development of their reproductive systems.

Even more importantly from Clarke's perspective, women who devoted too much time to intellectual pursuits also experienced mental changes.   This included losing their maternal instincts and "an an appearance of Amazonian coarseness and force."  He added that such women "are analogous to the sexless class of termites. Naturalists tell us that these insects are divided into males and females, and a third class called workers and soldiers, who have no reproductive apparatus, and who, in their structure and instincts, are unlike the fertile individuals." 

That wasn't to say that Clarke objected to all higher education for women.  He stressed that men and women needed to be educated separately and that different educational methods be used to avoid the medical problems associated with overstraining the female reproductive system.   Female-only classes would include periodic rest times keyed to their menstrual periods to avoid conflict.   They would also need shorter study hours due to their inability to handle the kind of academic pressure that men could.   As he pointed out:

A girl cannot spend more than four, or, in occasional instances, five hours of force daily upon her studies, and leave sufficient margin for the general physical growth that she must make.... If she puts as much force into her brain education as a boy, the brain or the special apparatus [i.e., the reproductive system] will suffer.

Given his own status as a Harvard professor, he concluded that women be prevented from attending Harvard Medical School or any other academic institution where they might be forced to compete with men intellectually given that such pressure would endanger their potential status as wives and mothers.   For that matter, forcing men to compete with women in this way would diminish both genders since, as he phrased it, "To make boys half-girls, and girls half-boys, can never be the legitimate function of any college."   Not that Clarke was the only medical pundit to argue that women were too unstable and frail to be educated alongside men.  In his 1900 address to the American Gynecological Society, George Julius Englemann urged that schools for girls needed to  deal with the "instability and susceptibility of the girl during the functional [menstrual] waves which permeate her entire being" by providing rest during the menstrual periods.  

Given fears that menstruation made all women unstable, even educational institutions that had begun admitting women raised concerns about damaging the health of their women students. An 1877 statement by the Board of Regents at the University of Wisconsin suggested that "it is better that the future matrons of the state should be without a University training than that it should be produced at the fearful expense of ruined health; better that the future mothers of the state should be robust, hearty, healthy women, than that, by over study, they entail upon their descendants the germs of disease."   In other words, women students risked damaging their own health and the health of the future children by too much study.  

Well into the 20th century, the co-education of men and women remained a controversial topic and most schools pushed for a sexually segregated curriculum that taught "appropriate" subjects for boys and girls.  This included courses such as Home Economics which were meant to direct women towards their future roles as wives and mothers.   Separate colleges for men and women were also founded including Radcliffe College in Massachusetts and Vassar College in New York and quickly developed reputations for academic excellence.  Still, their graduates often found themselves at a disadvantage in male-dominated industries such as medicine.  Not surprisingly, the impact that Edward Clarke's book had on the debate over women's education frankly alarmed women's rights advocates on both sides of the Atlantic.  Being a Harvard professor and a medical doctor gave Clarke's arguments instant credibility and the only effective way to counter them was to find hard scientific evidence that women were far less fragile than he claimed. 

Which brings us to Mary Putnam (later Jacobi)   Born in London in 1842, she grew up in New York where she privately studied medicine with Elizabeth Blackwell.  As the daughter of George Putnam, one of the giants of American publishing, she had an early introduction to the American literary community.   Her father objected to his daughter's choice to become a medical doctor but he ultimately came around.  After serving in the U.S. Civil War as a medical aide, she eventually earned her medical degree from the Woman's Medical College in Pennsylvania.   She then went to France and became the first woman to enter the Ecole de Medicine in Paris where she earned her second medical degree in 1871. 

In an unpublished autobiography written during the final years of her life, Jacobi explained that her determination to become a medical doctor began in her early childhood.  After finding a dead rat near her family home, she recalled thinking "“If I had the courage I could cut that rat open and find his heart which I greatly longed to see.”   While her mother put a stop to this early experiment in comparative anatomy, she remained determined to learn more about science as a way to protect herself from the overly-enthusiastic religious education provided by her evangelical grandmother.   She also had trouble accepting the second-class status of women in general, especially since they were routinely shut out of higher education in most universities.  Her own uphill battle to be accepted as a medical doctor was proof of that.

On returning to the United States in 1871, she went on to become probably the most important woman physician of her era.  After marrying physician Abraham Jacobi in 1873 and changing her own name, she quickly established a reputation as a serious medical researcher with publications in all of the leading medical journals.  She also became a professor at the Women's Medical College of the New York Infirmary and also taught at the New York Post-Graduate Medical School.   Along with helping establish the Pediatric Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital, she worked at the New York Infirmary for Women and Children and was a visiting physician at St. Mark's Hospital.

But Jacobi and other women physicians still had to struggle to gain popular acceptance.  Not only was it considered "unseemly" for women to have intimate knowledge of the human body, but many male physicians argued that women doctors weakened the profession due to their frail dispositions.  This is what made Edward Clarke's controversial book so damaging and the prospect of women becoming "unsexed" by medical training seemed like a compelling argument.

At the same time, there was also a fierce debate over the very nature of medicine and the role of science.  While scientist-practitioners like Jacobi stressed the importance of medical research in shaping how physicians treated their patients,   many doctors preferred to rely on a more intuitive approach.   That often caused conflicts for the male doctors treating women patients due to various misconceptions about female anatomy and how it affected patients psychologically.  It was during this era that "hysteria" became an overused diagnosis for a wide variety of psychological problems that women might experience in their lives  To treat this "condition", doctors often prescribed a bewildering variety of supposedly effective remedies, including the surgical removal of their ovaries -  an operation that led to the deaths of countless women patients.

Mary Putnam Jacobi spent her life countering this male-dominated perspective on women' health.   More importantly, she recognized the medical problems that women and children faced at a very personal level.  Jacobi and her husband had three children of whom only one survived infancy.  The pain of these losses caused them to dedicate themselves to improving child health through proper nutrition and prevention of infectious diseases.   Through the 1870s and 1880s, Mary Jacobi also dedicated herself to women's health issues. 

It was during this period when she wrote her famous rebuttal to Edward Clarke's book, The Question of Rest For Women During Menstruation.  Published in 1876, her book won Harvard University's Boylston Prize and became an early classic in gynecology.   Challenging all of Clarke's arguments, Jacobi's book included her own extensive research on woman patients including statistics and medical data outlining changes in female health, strength, and emotion throughout the menstrual cycle.  Her hard evidence emphatically demonstrated that Clarke's ideas about frail women were completely false though many of her male colleagues tended to "cherry-pick" details out of her work to support their own ideas.

In many ways, Mary Putnam Jacobi was full of apparent contradictions.   An early opponent of women's suffrage, she argued instead that health and education  were more important than being able to vote (she later changed her mind though).   She also clashed publicly and often with her fellow women's rights advocates, including Elizabeth Blackwell, over the direction their movement should take in ensuring greater sexual equality.  Though Blackwell argued that women should use their female values to provide the kind of medical care that male doctors couldn't, Jacobi maintained that men and women needed to be equal in the medical care they provided patients.  While many younger women doctors openly admired her powerful presence whenever she entered the room, as well as her formidable intelligence, her temper and inability to bear fools gladly "did not always add to her popularity" as Emily Blackwell once said.

She was also an avid workaholic, only taking time off from medicine on Sunday afternoons.  Along with her grueling medical practice, she was also an dedicated researcher.   Even after being diagnosed with a fatal brain tumour, she spent her last months carefully documenting the progress of her disease which she published as "Descriptions of the Early Symptoms of the Meningeal Tumor Compressing the Cerebellum."   She died in June, 1906 survived by her husband and daughter.

Largely through the work of Mary Putnam Jacobi and other female doctors like her, more women than ever sought out medical careers.  In the United States alone, there were 7000 woman doctors  by 1900 representing five percent of all medical school graduates.    Still, arguments from critics such as Edward Clarke continued to be raised and women continued to face barriers in gaining wider acceptance by male colleagues and society in general.   Even today, women face challenges in many professions that continue to be male-dominated.   Though the medical arguments have long since been refuted, the informal barriers can be as difficult as ever especially since women are expected to balance family life and professional work much more seamlessly than their male counterparts. 

Mary Putnam Jacobi would understand that all too well.

Can Mental Health Crisis Services Help Prevent Police Shootings?

Stories of police using deadly force when dealing with psychiatric emergencies are becoming increasingly common.   

Earlier this year, police in Rochester, New York were called in to apprehend Daniel Prude, they placed a "spit hood" over the psychiatric patient's head which led to his asphyxiating to death at the scene.   And when Salt Lake City police were called in last week to deal with 13-year-old Linden Cameron, an autistic child experiencing a "mental breakdown", the crisis intervention team his mother had asked for never materialized.  Instead, the unarmed youth was left critically wounded after being shot by an officer at the scene.  

With an estimated twenty-five percent of all people killed by police suffering from some form of mental illness, activists across North America are calling for  police forces to be defunded and for better interventions to help people in crisis.   But better alternatives already exist, at least in some areas.   In Eugene, Oregon, for example, the  Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets, or CAHOOTS, has been handling calls to help people in crisis since 1989.   Operating on a budget of $1,000,000 per year, CAHOOTS teams made up of medical professionals and crisis workers provide first aid in case of urgent medical need or psychological crisis. They also  assess, provide information, referrals, advocate for people and even bring them to other non-profit centres where they can get additional support.

"We have the trust of our community so when we arrive, we lead with, 'How can we support you? What's going on? What do you need right now,'" said Ebony Morgan, a CAHOOTS crisis worker in a recent media interview.  Dispatched by the local police department's non-emergency service line, law enforcement officers rarely accompany the teams and only in situations involving potential violence.   In the past year alone,  CAHOOTS teams were called to deal with crises about 24,000 times and only needed to call 911 for help 150 times.   According to Ebony Morgan, clients are kept fully informed when police are to be called in, as well as the reasoning for it.  The CAHOOTS model has been so successful, that similar programs have been established in other cities, including Oakland, Cali.; New York City and Denver, Colorado though Morgan remains hopeful that similar programs will eventually be set up in all cities.   

Another program that has been praised by patients advocates is the mental health ambulance service established in Stockholm, Sweden in 2015.  Originally started as a two-year pilot project, the initial mandate was to deal with suicidal behaviour but has since been expanded to handle a wide spectrum of psychiatric disorders.   People requesting help for themselves or someone else can call an emergency number to have the mental health ambulance dispatched.   Ambulance staff is made up of the ambulance driver and two mental health nurses trained to handle most crises as needed.  While police may also assist in potentially violent situations as needed.   Though not in operation as long as the CAHOOTS program, the mental health ambulance has already become a standard fixture in the Stockholm area and plans are already underway to expand the service.

For now, programs such as CAHOOTS and the Stockholm mental health ambulance service are still in the pilot stage, they represent a valuable alternative to standard police intervention when dealing with the mentally ill.  For now, cases like Daniel Prude and Linden Cameron will continue to occur until these alternatives are more widely available.