July 29, 2025 • 67 mins
Robert sits down with Steven Monacelli to tell the grisly tale of a Texas psychiatrist who invented an industry based on convincing juries to kill people.
(2 Part series)
sources:
TRAVELS WITH Dr. DEATH | Vanity Fair | May 1990
James Grigson Testimony Linked to Miscarriages of Justice
Effect of "Dr. Death" and his testimony lingers
Flawed Trials Lead to Death Chamber | Death Penalty Information Center
Texas halts execution of accomplice tainted by 'Dr Death' testimony - BBC News
James Grigson Obituary (2004) - Dallas, TX - Dallas Morning News
The Law; Expert Witness Is Unfazed by 'Dr. Death' Label - The New York Times
Law: They Call Him Dr. Death | TIME
Texas 'Dr. Death' retires after 167 capital case trials - Washington Times
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Also media time to party.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
It's not time to party, It's time to be sad.
Welcome to Behind the Bastards, a podcast that exists to
make your week worse so that you're you're more irritable
and frustrated around your friends and family and at work
and just a just a less happy person, you know,
all together. That's our job here Behind the Bastards. Stop
talking about for some reason, this this is profitable. Uh.
(00:30):
My guest today Stephen Monacelli. Stephen, how you doing.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Oh I'm pretty awful, Yeah, pretty awful.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Yeah, yeah, that's that's the general vibe. Everybody seems to
be awful.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Did Robert get your last name right?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
What did he say? I blocked out?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I said Monta Cellly.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I mean it's Mona Sely or Monoicelli. It just depends
on you know, which side of Ellis Island you're on.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Fair enough, that's right, the right side. I could do
like I could do like a it's it like gesture,
Yeah you're Italian? Oh yeah no no, no, Steven and
I can both say the two slurs that that Italians don't.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Yeah, anyone can, anyone.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
It's always acceptable, It's always fine.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
I feel very outnumbered today because I don't have a
beard and you're both Italian and the blonde hair.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
I'm not. You know, there's there's there's there's some wonderful
things about having Italian heritage. But I think when your
country invents fascism, everyone gets to make fun of your
your accent forever. Like that's just a fair rule. That's
just a fair rule.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Hasn't even really been that long, that's.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Than a censure, just about a little over a century
since it started. I guess, Stephen, how do you feel
about Texas, the state that we both came from and
that you still reside in.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Oh, complicated feelings, very complicated feelings, Robert, do we have
time for that? I'm not sure.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Well, that's what we're going to be talking about all week. Specifically,
we're going to be talking about one of the things
Texas is most fai miss for. I'm not talking about
shiner bock beer. I'm not talking about some other less
pleasant things than shiner bock beer. Well I am, I'm
talking about one of those things. I'm talking about our
death row.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Oh, I thought you were going to talk about them
trading Luka Dantrits to my Lakers.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
No, I feel like it's been a long time since
anyone in Texas made good sports related choices. Stephen, what
do you know about Texas death row?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Well, I know it's pretty bad. It's one of the
worst in the nation. Yeah, it's sizable. And there was
a period of time, I believe when we got rid
of the death penalty and then we decided to bring
it back.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
If I'm not mistaken, Yeah, there was a period of
time in which, like the whole country was kind of like,
we need to take a look at how we handle
like because the death penalty was stoped nationwide for a
while and then reinstated in nineteen seventy six after some
Supreme Court rulings. We'll talk a little bit about that.
But since the death penalty was reinstated in seventy six,
(03:11):
Texas has executed more people than any other state. We're
at I think five hundred and ninety five right now.
I've seen a couple of different numbers, but they're all
around six hundred, like since nineteen seventy six, like somewhere
in that vicinity. Last year, I think we Texas executed
five people. So we execute a lot of folks, and
(03:33):
as we'll talk about we've executed a lot of folks
that we know are definitely innocent over the last fifty
years or so, Right, it happens a lot, and.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Even recently, Yeah, in the past year or two. This
is high profile cases.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Yeah. And if you look at like a lot of
Innocence Project cases where it's like, oh, we now have
evidence this guy was pretty much definitely innocent, but they
got executed. Texas is often the state that they were
executed in. And today we're not talking about the whole
system a different episode. Probably, we're talking about one guy
who had an outsized role in making the system the
way it was and who has probably done more damage
(04:08):
to psychiatry as a discipline than maybe any other single
figure outside of like, you know, the Nazi period. Right, Like,
we're talking about a guy who was known as doctor
Death but in Texas, and you know, there's another doctor
Death that was famous, Jack Cavorkian, who's the like advocate
for a patient's right to die. I think if you
(04:29):
you and I grew up around the same time, you
probably remember hearing stories about Jack Kavorkian, who also got
called that he was a very different guy. There's some
like weird and questionable stuff about Kavorkian, some like eugenics
edge stuff that he wrote about privately, But he's not
really someone we'd focus on in this show. I think
fundamentally what he was doing is like more or less fine,
(04:50):
you know, with some potential room for quibbles there. The
doctor death we're talking about is Texas's doctor death, and
he did not assist people who wanted to die with
doing so painlessly and with dignity. Instead, he took it
upon himself to use a psychiatric degree to feed dozens
and dozens of human beings to Texas's death row. He
(05:11):
was the doctor who would sit down and tell a jury,
this man has to be executed or he will kill again.
That was his business. And his name was doctor James Grigson.
Have you ever heard of this guy?
Speaker 3 (05:23):
So, to be honest, no, when you first reached out
and mentioned doctor death, there was another doctor in North
Texas who had also been given that moniker.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
We've got a couple of them, huh.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yeah, yeah, And so that was the person who I
immediately thought you're referring.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
To Nago Texas mm hm.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
But he was like some surgeon and plane. Oh and botched.
Stuff happened and a bunch of people died. So yeah, I'm.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Sure we'll cover him bad, Like elective surgery stories is
one of our bread and butter. It's just like bad
you know, doctors who get people killed that way.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
But Gregson, No, didn't hear about him.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
No, Yeah, there's a you know, it's awful obviously if
someone's just like incompetent or not taking care and kills
people accidentally. But this is a guy who, like his
business was convincing juries to kill people, right, and it
made him like a fairly wealthy man. And so yeah,
that's the guy we're talking about today, doctor James Grigson,
(06:23):
who was born James Paul Grigson Junior on January thirtieth
of nineteen thirty two in Texarkana, Texas. And if our
listeners haven't been to Texarkana, how would you describe texar Cana.
It's like a little bit of Texas, a little bit
of Louisiana, a little bit of Oklahoma, you know.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Yeah, the lake culture is a big thing. Lake Texoma
is a huge lake. And so yeah, I think think
about kind of the grimy, like you know, swampy bayou
culture but it's inland around a lake.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Yeah, yeah, inland swamp culture is, I guess a good
way to put it. When I was a kid, because
I grew up in like southern Oklahoma for a while,
I had to go there to get allergy shots. So
Texarcana is permanently on my shit list. Is like a
city of pain, but not for any good reason, just
because they had a doctor in the town I grew
up and had fuck all, So I guess I shouldn't
(07:16):
be angry at them anymore. But yeah, I didn't like
any allergy shots anyway. That's where That's where James Paul
Griggson Junior is born. His mother is ethel May McLeod
and his father is James Paul Griggson Senior. Obviously, we
have very little about his upbringing. The few details we
do get paint a picture of a kid who came
from like a comfortable background, probably upper middle class. It's
(07:40):
a little hard for me to tell, but he admitted
in a nineteen ninety interview that as a kid, his
family's money came from the tombstone business. Right they had
a license to sell. There's apparently a trademark type of
marble that everyone used to use for headstones that's called
rock of ages, right and for whatever. And you had
to have like a license to like you had to
(08:02):
be like a distributor to sell this shit, right, this
one type of fucking marble that only this one company
could license, and his family were the only ones who
could sell it in like four states, including Arkansas and Texas.
So my guess is they did pretty well. Right. That's
one of those businesses like people are always going to
be dying. So yeah, I mean, the tombstone business not
(08:24):
a bad one to be in. And it's interesting to
me that kind of from the very earliest moments of
his life, this guy's financial comfort is always tied to
death as a business right for his whole life.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
So crazy, it's a bit.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Poetic, yeah, it really is. Now. One of the few
details that we get of his childhood came from an
article called Travels with Doctor Death by journalist Ron Rosenbaum
for Vanity Fair, and Rosenbaum quotes him as claiming in
this interview quote he and his brother would come home
from work and lock themselves into epic, fratricidal chess matches
(08:57):
hour after hour, night after night. The doctor's brother went
on to become a professional pool shark and gambler, so
he's both this very competitive person. His big influence growing
up is kind of a con man, right, but he
doesn't go for like the petty conman business. He chooses academia, right.
That's he and his brother split. His brothers goes off
to be a pool shark, but James has got to
(09:19):
have that like DNA, that like desired, I've always got
to win. And also I have kind of loose morals
about how I make my money, right, that seems to
be something he and his brother are both kind of
sympatico on. He goes to Texas A and M with
a small tight group of friends who all opt for
careers in the navy, but Jim gravitates towards science and
he winds up entering a pre med program. He goes
(09:41):
to Southwestern Medical School and while he's starting college. While
he's starting medical school, he gets married to Mary Lee
Stone and they start having kids, eventually four of them.
He supports his growing family by working two full time
jobs and three part time jobs at the same time,
per his obituary, So that's what his his family would
later claim, I don't know, if he's working what is
(10:04):
that one hundred and forty hours a week something like
that and going to school. But that's what he later claims.
This guy is not a reliable narrator, So I don't know.
Maybe he's not putting in quite that much effort, or
maybe he found some really good bullshit jobs. Either way,
he gets into medicine and he really likes doing his
clinical rotations. That obituary notes Jim loved the excitement of
(10:27):
the emergency room, but the hours of a psychiatrist allowed
more family time. He loved the challenge of figuring out puzzles,
the human brain being the most complicated. When finished with
formal school, Jim thought he could learn more by teaching.
He taught psychiatry at Southwestern for four years. During this period,
he developed a specialty of forensic psychiatry, which became the
passion of his career. And that's the kind of clean
(10:49):
version of his backstory that clearly he told his family
and that yeah, they wanted to believe, is that he
starts teaching and he just kind of develops an interest
in forensics psychiatry right as it's developing as a discipline,
and just falls in love with the field. Rights, that's
what he's saying. So pretty anodyne backstory so far. Nothing
(11:10):
too sketchy here, except for the fact that forensic psychiatry
kind of has a sketchy history as a discipline. Right.
It's not like it's not always been the quest for
knowledge of the human brain. A lot of times it's
been the quest for like, well, I believe certain things
about people that I don't like, and it's really nice
to be able to claim scientifically that this is true. Right,
(11:33):
you know you've got there's not a thick a line
separating psychiatry from phrenology in the early part of the
twentieth century as we'd.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Like, right, I mean, you know, not to mix up
our fields too much. But it dovetails with the lovely
practice of lobotomies, which right, some of us wish we
could bring back at this point in time for our
own just.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
For mercy's sake. Yeah. Yeah, maybe they had a point, right, Yeah,
A nice pick in the old frontal lobe sounds nice
right about now.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
They might have been onto something like FREYD but that's
another conversation.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Yeah, yeah, but an.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Apt field for someone who may have had a slightly
con manesque tendency to fall into in the time of
this story.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
It's a perfect field for that. And you know, it's
perfect in part because it's really new, Like forensic psychiatry
is an idea was less than a century old when
he kind of starts studying it, right, it had kind
of begun, I mean it kind of it depends on
how you date it, but somewhere around a little over
a century to less than a century old when he
(12:35):
starts going to school, right, And that doesn't mean that
it had been kind of really settled in any sort
of way as a discipline for most of that period
of time. We kind of start seeing the early gasps
of what becomes forensic psychiatry near the middle, you know,
in the thirties and forties, the eighteen thirties, eighteen forties
to kind of the mid to late eighteen hundreds, and
initially when the field first got involved, when kind of
(12:57):
psychiatry first starts getting involved in criminal justice, in the
solving of crime, and you know, the judging of people
who have been accused of crimes. The work of psychiatrists
who are getting into that field is kind of initially
less focused on what it will be which is, are
these people, you know, competent to stand trial? Was this
person aware of what they were doing? Are they likely
(13:19):
to offend again? It was less It was less focused
on stuff like that. Then odd stuff like the adjudication
of wills, right Like, Initially, forensic psychiatrists were often brought
in because someone would die and give their money to
someone the family didn't want it to go to, and
so you'd bring in this kind of proto forensic psychiatrist
to determine whether or not the person who had died
(13:40):
was compassmentous when they signed their will. And I found
a really interesting article on this because it dovetails with
what Grigson's career is going to become in the American
Academy of Psychiatry Law Journal, and that article notes the
evidence suggests that post mortem diagnoses of insanity were employed
through the middle decades of the nineteenth century to maintain
stable and predictable patterns of property conveyance in the New Republic,
(14:03):
but such diagnoses then became something of a fad, a
way to raid states. Courts and legislatures reacted against that
trend during the last decades of the nineteenth century, when
fundamental social stability was no longer an issue in order
to protect individual testators and limit the power of forensic psychiatry.
So it starts off as a way for people to
go like, hey, I think I should get some of
(14:24):
that guy's money, and if I can hire a better
professional than the other guy, right, then I can get this.
I can have this adjudicated. And so psychiatrists start throwing
themselves I'm an expert on whether or not someone I
can tell it by their handwriting or whatever. And it
becomes this huge grift and it's just destroying people's estates
and ability to inherit. And so the courts have to
(14:44):
come and be like all of these fucking psychiatrists who
are getting in the middle of the probate process of
the estate process are like Conman, and like, we need
to get through the fuck out of here. This has
to stop. And that basic pattern is going to be
repeat itself in the in death penalty cases in Texas
from like the seventies through the nineties. Right, But it's
(15:04):
the same pattern. So I think it's really interesting that
it happens first a century earlier in like the estate
and will process just Christ It's so cool, of course, it.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Starts with the money, but then as we develop this
larger carceral state and institutionalization process, it bleeds into that,
and then we I guess, guess, get to what we're
talking about today, this guy who seems like a real
piece of work based on my brief reading.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Yes, And it's interesting because it's kind of killed fairly
quickly in a couple of decades. When the thing at
risk is rich people's inheritance. Right when it's about that,
governments start acting pretty quickly to put the kibosh on
it once things get out of hand. So when the
grift switches to like, let's just convince juries to kill
(15:52):
poor people. When I will talk about how they're doing
that later, don't worry. But when it switches to that,
there's not as much interest in fixing it, right because
no one's got any money. It's cool stuff. You love
to see it. So basically, the first forensic psychiatrists, or
a lot of the first forensic psychiatrists in this country.
I mean, you wouldn't have called them that, but these
(16:13):
are you know, they're in that line of ascent. We're
hired guns, right that were brought in, you know, in
order to come to a specific conclusion based on who
was paying them, and that you know, a lot of
what was happening here was not really in any way
different from bribery. Now, another thing is going on in
this this early developing field throughout the middle of the
eighteen hundreds, not just in the US, but over in Europe,
(16:35):
and this is that the court systems and the legal
systems of western nations are increasingly interested in how you
define insanity in a legal sense. Right now, this has
been done going back, you can go back to classic
now you can find cases in like ancient Greece and
stuff that you know, are are relevant to this. So
there's this is not just you know, a century or
(16:56):
so of history in terms of people being interested in
and the legal profession. But it really starts to get professionalized,
you know, in the middle of the eighteen hundreds, and
it's kind of in this early modern period that people
start accepting and building into the legal system the idea
that someone can be too out of their mind to
be is truly responsible for their actions. Right that there
(17:17):
is a degree of If a person is you know,
dealing a degree with a certain degree of in capacitation,
they're not fully responsible for even the most heinous crimes, right,
That's one of the things going on here. There's some
less positive things going on too, including again eugenics is
happening in this period, so there's also interest in how
do we determine who's sick so we can stop them
from breeding and passing on their sickness. You know, that's
(17:39):
the dark side of this. But you know, one of
the good things is that early defense attorneys are a
lot of the people who are most interested in pushing
we need to be defining when someone is not compassmentous, right,
even if they act absolutely did the crime, because that
should matter. And there's a bit of a debate I found,
you know, some articles from historians who kind of study
(18:00):
the history of insanity as a legal concept. There's a
little bit of a debate as to whether or not
we should see this medical concept as something that was
first pushed by legal experts, primarily defense attorneys, in order
and in other words, and thus is an example of
the expansion of the power of law. Right that like
the law was really responsible for pushing this concept into
(18:24):
the science, right, and for incentivizing psychiatrists, early psychiatrists to
have an interest in declaring people to be insane. Right,
that that was something that came about in part because
the law was pushing it. And one of the people
who argue this was Michelle fucoh Per an article in
the Journal of Medical History. Though psychiatric expertise for a
(18:44):
brief moment may have been introduced as an alternative mode
of power, it soon found its place alongside the law
in the medico legal apparatus of the nineteenth century, thereby
expanding power rather than usurping it. In this manner, the
alleged humanization of punishment in the nineteenth century was countered
by the expansion of disciplinary power. In other words, while
some of this is good, the fact that we're saying, well,
some people really can't be held responsible for their actions,
(19:07):
what you're also seeing here is the law asserting a
degree of control over like who gets a full set
of rights because of their mental state? Right, And that
that's kind of the dark side of this.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Right.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
It wasn't just a matter of whether Johnny did a
crime and was out of his gourd and yeah, shouldn't
be held accountable for it. It was a matter of
should Jane be put into an institution where their freedom
of movement is restricted, and they applied with medications or
forced to take some sort of procedures they would not
(19:39):
otherwise have agreed to do.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Yeah, if the law is saying, hey, we need you
to define insanity because we're going to use it to
declare that certain groups of people are treated differently and
restricted in different ways by the law, that's really an
expansion in the power of law in a meaningful way.
So Yeah. In other words, there's kind of a couple
of different magic major developments that set the stage for
(20:02):
our doctor death right in the late eighteen hundreds in
the early nineteen hundreds, which is that forensic psychiatrists are
often being used as hired guns to secure desired results
in court, and that that's very much at the root
of the profession, and that the concept of insanity and
definitions of mental health become incorporated into the legal process
in a way that is going to make medical diagnoses
(20:22):
a relevant aspect of how the state can prosecute people
and what it can do to them. Rosenbaum, who's the
writer who spent the most time with doctor Griggson, describes
him as a country boy with a killer instinct who,
after getting his MD attended a psychiatric residency at Parkland Hospital.
He again he teaches for a while, but Rosenbaum asserts
this doesn't provide him with enough of a challenge or
(20:44):
enough of an opportunity to compete, right, And that's kind
of this journalist who knows the guy best is like,
I think it's naturally there's not an adversarial process in
traditional psychiatry, your psychist, it's supposed to be fighting you,
And like this guy, what's psychiatry? He wants to win
at psychiatry. So the court process provides him if he
(21:04):
can get involved in court cases, then he's part of
an adversarial process, which means he can win and someone
else can lose. And he could prove that he's better
right than someone else put points on the board, could
put points on the board. Right. The kind of traditional
way good science and academia's supposed to go did not
suit the quote pool shark at him, and so he decides,
(21:24):
I'm going to find a way that I can win
at psychiatry. And that's why he gets into forensic psychiatry. Now,
Rosenbaum claims it's the duel of wits with dangerous criminals,
which enthralled Grigson, and this is likely that Grigson would
say certain things himself. He had some quotes where he
woud basically be like Batman, like I'm at a war
with crime, right, criminals, Like I'm arraying myself against the
(21:47):
most dangerous and deadly criminal masterminds in the world. And
he really wants to portray himself as this genius chess master.
He'll talk a lot about his childhood chess games and
then you know, these adversarial process with all these murderers
and whatnot, and he wants you to look at them
as like he's constantly every week he's fighting Hannibal Lecter, right,
(22:08):
like that's who he's going up it gets. And that's
just not true. That's not at all true. And we're
going to talk about how off this belief he has
about himself that he really pushed in every interview we
ever did is. But first we're going to talk about
some ads. Oh Jesus, yeah, good response to ads, and
(22:36):
we're back. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm
planning on purchasing that product and or service. You know,
I'm gonna use money as a means of exchange in
order to buy goods and services. That sounds fun to me.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
We love the money form, We love the Money's podcast.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
What kind of money do you use? Steven? Are you
one of those? Do you like to drag around those big,
like five hundred pounds wheels and whirl them across the
ground and use those as a means of exchange?
Speaker 3 (23:02):
I like cuneiform tablets, yeah, or any anything that you
can really feel the heft to it when it's in
your pocket.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Yeah, yeah, because that's I like that too, so much
better than like, I never call a company anymore. I'm
not going to get stuck on the phone with a chatbot.
If I have a complaint, I'm going to like hammer
into like a mud tablet. I'm gonna hammerer in a
mud and dry it, and then I'm going to mail
that cuneiform tablet to whatever company and complain about the
poor great copper that they're selling me. You know.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
The only issue is I find that they don't take
it on the online gambling sites that may or may
not have been advertised before this. No, So that's the
that's the one downside. But I'm keeping myself straight these days, So.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
I'm doing what I can that's good. Cuneiform is good
for that. Speaking of keeping yourself straight, doctor Grigson is
fascinated by people who can't keep on the straight and narrow, right.
These are had been victual criminals. These are folks who
have serious impulse control issues, which is obviously the majority
of folks who wind up committing capital crimes. Right now,
(24:11):
there is our number of kind of different psychiatric diagnoses
that we use today for you know this, these kind
of people. The word Grigson uses and the word that
you find over and over again and all of the
reporting on his work is sociopath.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Right.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
He is fascinated with sociopaths. He likes to diagnose people
as sociopaths. Right. And it's very important that you understand,
because this is my pet peeve. Sociopath and sociopathy are
not medical diagnoses. They absolutely are not. No one is
diagnosed as a sociopath. It's not a medical diagnosis. It
(24:49):
is a term people like to use because they think
it is, but it's not.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
Now.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
It used to be the term that was proper that
people tended to use kind of interchangeably with sociopath is psychopath, right,
And psychopathy is what a lot of a lot of
these people, a lot of like people who commit murder,
particularly people who again are kind of these career criminals,
career violent criminals who have a lot of issues with
impulse control, who don't really seem to have much in
(25:17):
the way of empathy. Psychopathy is the term that was
used for a long time to describe them. We don't
use that anymore, right. The current diagnosis that those people
tend to be given today is antisocial personality disorder or APD, right,
which is replaced what we call psychopathy. Right. But it's
important you know that at the time doctor Grigson was working,
(25:38):
psychopath would have been the medical term for the people
that he was declaring to be sociopaths. And when you're
talking to like a regular person, like when your friends like,
oh yeah, man, my boss did this or this, and
I think he's a sociopath, It's fine, I don't care.
I'm not going to I don't correct somebody. Just in
your daily life. If you're a psychiatrist, you should get
the term right. Right. You shouldn't just make You should
(26:00):
just be using a term that's not a medical diagnosis
for a guy that you're declaring has an illness that
makes him more dangerous for the purpose of a death
penalty hearing, right, which is what's going on here. This
just really bugs me.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
Now.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Psychopaths, which is again the term when he's doing these diagnoses,
or people with APD, which is what we use today,
are people who don't feel guilty for impulsive or violent actions.
They lie to others easily and without qualm, They rarely
have close relationships, and they often fall into criminal behavior.
Hannibal Lecter is probably still the number one cultural touchstone
(26:35):
as to what we used to call psychopaths. But the
vast majority of people with APD are not geniuses, and
they're not good planners.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
Right.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
That's kind of a key aspect. This isn't everyone, but
most people with APD have a horrible impulse control. They're
not good at planning. They're not good at like plotting
out genius getaways.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
Right.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
That's why a lot of these people get caught is
they don't tend to be a lot of it talks
about how they below average IQ. I have my issues
with IQ, but these are not people who make good
decisions that allow them to be like Dexter, right, They're
not a one step ahead of the authorities. They're deciding
in a moment to commit a violent crime and then
running like fucking leaving a shitload of evidence. That's the norm, Right.
(27:15):
These people are not masterminds. The ones who are you know,
you know, might have been diagnosed to psychopac or of APD,
who don't have these problems, who do have good impulse control,
who are better at planning. We no tend to gravitate
towards one of a couple of different careers. They are
overrepresented in business, like MBA's executives. They are overrepresented in
(27:36):
law enforcement, and they are overrepresented in the clergy. These
are they go for jobs. The folks who do have
that hannibal lector mastermind capability, they go for jobs where
they're protected right by what their their job is, or
people don't look at them or assume because of their
social status that they'll be doing the fucked up shit
that they're doing.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
It also provides them a certain amount of power to
wheel over others to fulfill whatever those twisted desires are
and then cover it up should they need to.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Right, And there's there's also like, you know, like all
of this stuff is a spectrum, Right, people have aspects
of this, like you know, the there's a degree to
which certain things that we tend to attribute to this
group of people, like not being overly empathetic, can be
a benefit. If you're a surgeon, maybe it's not that
bad that you don't really get bothered by cutting into
(28:26):
somebody because your job is to cut into people, right,
which insurgents are overrepresented, you know, with aspects of kind
of the things, And this criteria has been shifting. We've
really started to accept in the last couple of decades that,
like our old diagnoses of psychopathy were pretty flawed, and
they're still pretty flawed, but like you know, we were
moving towards a more rational understanding of this whole phenomenon.
(28:50):
But it's important to know that even by the standards
of the time, doctor Grigson, when he talks about these
these murderers who he calls sociopaths, he's just wrong, Like
he's just strong by the medical standards of the time
and certainly by the standards of the day. So in
the nineteen sixties, you know, fascinated by sociopaths, doctor Grigson
starts selling himself as a forensic psychiatrist to prosecutors and
(29:12):
defense attorneys. Initially, his business is limited to what we're
called competency exams. You know, this is deciding if it
defend into saying for the purposes of standing trial. And
you know, there's nothing wrong necessarily with that idea. I mean,
there's some issues with how it was applied, but this
is not immediately a problematic field. He would claim that
he got into doing this because when he first started
(29:34):
he had a lot of arrant beliefs about psychiatry as
a result of his liberal education. Quote at first I
got the shit connd out of me, and medical school
I was as liberal as any psychiatrist you'll ever meet.
You know, most psychiatrists will say, if you commit a crime,
there's something wrong with you. And I don't really think
that's true because like most people who commit crimes, it's like,
(29:55):
I don't most psychiatrists would be like, oh, you're you
got like a possession of small amount of marijuana, you
must have a mental illness or right, or you didn't
pay a speeding ticket for too long because you couldn't
afford it and you got a warrant, you have a
mental ill And that's like even like petty theft I
get very rarely is going to get you diagnosed with
a mental illness, Like I don't think most psychiatrists say this, No, no,
(30:18):
not at all, No. And it's you know, it's also
probably not even the case with murder necessarily, right, because
most of the evidence, even at that time, suggests that
the majority of murders are crimes of passion, right, which
is people who are otherwise sane and who are otherwise functional,
who lose their shit in a moment in a disastrous way, right,
not somebody who they're not. But most murderers are not
(30:40):
people who want to keep murdering, right. It's like a
thing that happens in a moment of passion. And you know,
it's debatable generally as to whether or not there's anything
you would diagnose them with. So I just think he's
I think he's miss like he's describing the rest of
his feel badly because his entire career is going to
be spent defining himself in awe position to every other psychiatrist,
(31:01):
Like he hates everyone else in this discipline because he
thinks they're all wrong, so he has to make up
lies about what his fellows are doing. So he claims that,
like he comes in with all these ideas about you know, oh,
all these people must just be sick, and then he
spends several thousand hours interviewing accused murderers and he starts
to understand, Oh, no, all of the other psychiatrists are wrong.
(31:22):
These people aren't sick. Quote, they were just mean. I
often think there ought to be a diagnosis, you know, mean,
son of a bitch. So really good scientist here. Just
that sounds rigorous, that's falsifiable. I love a psychiatrist who
says shit like this.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Incredible, incredible. I'm trying to imagine someone in a modern
profession just saying that they spoke to a bunch of people. Yeah,
I mean, it reminds me of thinking that it has
something to do with humors, like, oh, they're just all mean.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
They got means son of a bitch disease.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Nothing more to it. He can't read into it any further.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Yeah, it's literally like that's from The Simpsons when Homer
gets an elephant at the end, where there's like some
animals are just dicks. So over time, he goes from
declaring people not competent or competent to stand trial to
declaring more and more defendants perfectly sane. Right Like he
starts as he's doing this, coming to the conclusion that
like almost nobody deserves to, you know, get off or
(32:21):
deserves to have you know, their sentence mitigated as the
result of this, and his justification for this shift is
something that he kind of perfectly crafted from his media
appearances to appeal to the law and order set in
North Texas, which is where he mostly practiced. Quote these days,
when they'll have tears fallen down from their eyes, I've
learned to give this response. You can knock that shit off.
(32:42):
You're not fooling me a bit, and you can't believe it.
Tears will just dry up like that. Okay, So he's
crafting his image perfectly for the place and time that
he's set in, right this, this is going to go
over pretty well with juries. He's very popular with Texas
jury's for a long time. He also wears a cowboy
hat a lot of the time, which is like de
(33:04):
rigueur for a certain kind of guy. Anyway, it's a
little unclear to me whether or not, you know, he
ever had a liberal period as a psychiatrist. If this
is just again part of the image he crafts because
it sells well that like, oh, I used to be
one of those liberal soft on crime weenies, but then
I learned the truth. Right either way, he starts testifying
(33:25):
about the mental status of people accused of capital crimes
in nineteen sixty seven, and the main shift here is
that he's no longer testifying is this person competent to
stand trial? After sixty seven? He's primarily testifying should this
person be subjected to the death penalty? Right? And to
explain why, why is a psychiatrist involved in this? Why
(33:46):
does that matter? Right? Why would you allow a psychiatrists
to testify about this? This comes down to something that
is not quite unique to Texas, but is almost unique
to Texas in this period. So his first year's pcting
come during a very messy time for the death penalty.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
There are a bunch of subcommittees and committee meetings in
the early seventies after there's this kind of moratorium and
the death penalty in Texas where they're trying to figure out,
how do we as a modern state continue to have
a death penalty? What should that look like?
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Right?
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Because you know we're past the ages and Texas rangers
just going in and hanging people. Right, we can't do
that anymore, you know, Walker, Texas ranger doesn't look nearly
as good if he's literally putting people into gallows. So
how do we actually like build this into our system
in a way that's modern? And this is this is
part of there's this massive debate nationwide at the federal
(34:39):
level over the death penalty and like what the laws
should be about it in Texas. Being Texas, we're going
to want to find a way to both keep executing
people and justify it as a matter of necessity.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
We don't want to seem backwards while we're doing it. So,
like most Texas laws, the process of creating a modern
death penalty standard to kind of replace the old ways
was rushed and messy. Texas Law Review describes the Texas
legislature's process as quote somewhat confused, which is generally accurate.
Legislature works today. Time is a flat circle, my friend.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
Generous description, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Generous description. Kind to the state and the House and Senate,
who both wind up with different and conflicting standards. Right,
they both proposed like very different sets of rules for
how the death penalty off ought to work, and they
find themselves having to reconcile this in a very short timeframe.
And I want to quote from a passage by the
Texas Law Review to give you an idea of how
messy the process was. With only Memorial Day weekend to
(35:40):
go before adjournment, the House called a conference committee to
resolve the differences between the two bills. On the very
last day, the conferees presented a scheme which appeared in
neither the House nor the Senate bill, along with newly
minted language about a probability that the defendant would be
a continuing threat. That same day, both houses passed the
committee report by huge margins without specifically considering the new
languge on future dangerousness. So to get out, in order
(36:03):
to get out for the long weekend. After like deliberating
and coming up with their own plans, they back something
completely different that no one's read, because like, look, man,
are we going to give up? We I got to
get out to the lake like it's hot.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
It's hot during the legislature. You gotta get that often. Yeah,
come on, got the barbecue ready to go.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Right right? So the vague and poorly written nature of
the initial legalies leads to several years of disputes and
ultimately a State Supreme Court case in nineteen seventy six.
The system that results from this is indeed a modern one,
and that it creates a several step roadmap towards deciding
when and who would be executed. Right, Basically, there's a
(36:44):
the Texas legislature builds a flow chart of death to determine, like,
we've convicted this guy, should we kill him? So the
first thing that has to happen is the jurors have
to agree unanimously that the convicted murder had deliberately sought
out to kill their victim. Right, if somebody just like
drunk and hit someone with a car, that's not a
death penalty case. Right, there's not a deliberate intent there,
(37:04):
you know. Or if you're just Yosemite samming and accidentally
shoots some guy, there's not intent. So the next thing
they have to agree on is that there's some probability
that the defendant would go on to carry out future
acts of violence. And then the third thing they have
to decide is that, having taken everything that happened into account,
there had been no provocation that had inspired the murderous violence. Right,
(37:26):
So someone didn't punch you and then you shot them,
and you know that's not an equivalent exchange of force,
but you were provoked, right, That would kind of disqualify
you from the death penalty, even if you'd get punished otherwise. Now,
of these three points, you know, the first I don't
agree with their being this with a state like ours
doing the death penalty, but those the first and third
(37:47):
point are at least like, I see why they're in there, right.
You want to make sure this is isn't just a
crime of passion, and you want to make sure they're
like this, there's an a mitigating factor, right, that this
wasn't part of a fight. That second one, though, that
it's really problematic. That's pre crime shit, right, I mean
they've committed a they've been a convicted of a crime.
But you are asking a jury to say, in the future,
(38:10):
will this person do violence if not killed. You're asking
the jury to step outside of any evidence and make
a prediction about someone's future behavior. Do you see how
that's maybe a problem.
Speaker 3 (38:21):
Yeah, it's I mean, it's certainly a distinction. And the
only parallel I can think of is whether someone is
released on bail or not because they might be considered
some sort of flight risk or maybe a public safety risk.
But if you contain that within the boundaries of holding
someone in detainment or holding them behind.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
Bars, right, this isn't a permanent status. We're not determining
this person's whole life, right, you know, even though that
doesn't make it not problematic.
Speaker 3 (38:49):
Yet there's a possibility that they could, you know, spend
time in jail and show that they are of no
threat and then you release, right, So yeah, I mean
it is it is a huge difference. It's it's requiring
people to look into the future with yes, no real basis.
Speaker 2 (39:03):
Yeah, which is which is like weird. Right. And so
this second thing, right, this second like point on the
flow chart becomes known to the legal community in Texas
as special issue number two. Right, And that's really what
a lot of death penalty cases and are going to
come down to a special issue number two. Right, is
this person going to commit more violent crimes if they
are left alive, you know, for the rest of their
(39:25):
life in prison or whatever. And this is almost unique
in western jurisprudence.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
Right.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
In essence, the state of Texas has codified the duty
of a jury in death penalty cases to predict the future.
Only one other state in the United States required a
finding a future dangerousness when considering the death penalty. It's
such a niche piece of like legal theory or legal
you know, procedure, that very few people outside of Texas
are even aware that special issue number two exists, And
(39:53):
the broader national psychiatric community doesn't seem to really have
initially seen this as an issue that might concern in
their discipline, right, because they're you know, it's just that
they've got fifty states they're not concerned with like this initially,
as like, why would you even think psychiatrists would get
involved in the special issue number two? Right? This would
prove to be an error because if juries were now
(40:15):
going to be asked to determine will a person kill
again if left alive, prosecutors are going to start looking
to hire experts, special experts for court cases who can
speak to what kind of behavior is predictable for what
kind of defendant. So doctor Grickson is going to be
among if not the very first of these guys of
(40:36):
these psychiatrists, right, And he describes how he fell into
this line of work in doing so as a natural
evolution of his previous work. Per an article, in time,
he was going about his normal duties, evaluating people for
commitment proceedings, when quote one court veteran suddenly thought, hey,
here's a sane psychiatrist. Instead of playing golf on Wednesday,
I started doing legal work. Right, So that happens in
(40:58):
like the early seventies. He started, like he's been kind
of evaluating people in a similar way for a while,
but now it's sort of codified into like, this is
how we're determining whether or not to execute people, you know.
By the mid seventies, and in short order, court cases
now take up most of his professional time. He's making
like one hundred dollars an hour, bringing in some sixty
(41:20):
one thousand dollars a year in the seventies, which is
hundreds of thousands today. This is a lot of money
in the seventies. Yeah, this is probably somewhere in the
neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars a year in
modern money. Right, And he's again he's doing like a
day of work a week, right, So nice gig if
you can get it.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
Yeah, he's got the pat sage Jack career path.
Speaker 2 (41:42):
Yeah. When interviewed about doctor Grigson, University of Texas law
professor George Dick said he is skillful and persuasive, and
he doesn't talk down to the jury. Most importantly, Dick said,
Grigson is more willing than most colleagues to make predictions
about a defendant's future behavior and really strong ones. Right.
He's willing to say this person will definitely, as opposed
(42:03):
to other psychiatris who get up and be like, well,
you know, it's not uncommon for people with this to reoffend.
But I can't say he will say, oh, I can
guarantee you one hundred percent this person will kill again
if you don't execute them now, right, You're not supposed
to do that.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
No, he was given his clients what they were paying for.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
It sounds like, yes, exactly. And there's going to be
research in the future that shows that when whether or
not psychiatrists are hired by the defense or prosecution, biases
their findings on individuals that they're asked to like evaluate, right,
that like, yeah, who is paying you matters, you know,
(42:45):
and that's important. None of this is blind. It's not
the court hiring someone to say, just tell us one
way or the other. Right, This is prosecution being like
I want another I want to put a death penalty
thing on my belt, you know, like make sure this
guy we can fry this son of a bitch. Now,
this is again not something that psychiatrists should be doing,
(43:05):
or that was ever considered to be okay within the
mainstream of psychiatry in this period. But doctor Grigson takes
it upon himself to make himself Texas's most recognized expert
on whether or not someone will kill again if left alive.
Writing for Vanity Fair, Rosenbaum describes quote, this is where
the doctor comes in. He'll take the stand, listen to
a recitation of facts about the killing and the killer,
(43:26):
and then, usually without examining the defendant, without ever setting
eyes on him until the day of the trial, tell
the jury that as a matter of medical science, he
can assure them the defendant will pose a continuing danger
to society as defined by number two. That's all it takes.
What makes the doctor so effective, Both prosecution and defense
lawyers will tell you this is his bedside manner with
(43:46):
the jury. He is kindly gregarious, country doctor manner. His reassuring,
beautifully modulated East Texas drawl helped jurors get over the
hump and do the deed, says one bitter defense lawyer.
He's kind of like a Marcus Welby who tells you
it's okay to kill Jesus.
Speaker 3 (44:02):
So he basically does the least amount of work possible
and comes out with the most certain opinion possible.
Speaker 2 (44:08):
Yes, with the most certain opinion, he does, and he's
not again you were There's a whole thing about this,
the Goldwater Rule based on you know, that guy who
was considered a crazy conservative, and so psychiatrist started like
diagnosing him on TV as like you know, paranoid and whatever,
and the discipline. The APA was like, you can't do that.
(44:29):
You never met the man. You can't. You can't just
diagnose a guy from television. And he's not even diagnosing
them from TV. He's like sitting across from a dude
reading a police summary of the crime and going like, oh, yeah,
let me tell you what this guy's got.
Speaker 1 (44:43):
Insane, so insane and getting paid so much money.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
Getting paid a lot of money. By the way, Marcus Welby,
MD was a TV show about a doctor.
Speaker 3 (44:51):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (44:52):
Yeah, James Brolin played one of the characters. So there
you go, James Brolin. So this is like, this is
bad ethics, and this kind of starts initially when he's
doing this, he's using he'll go in and he'll talk,
he will interview the defendant and he'll pretend but he'll
interview them with her false pretenses. He'll interview them under
(45:14):
the pretenses of determining whether or not they're sane. And
then sometimes he'll even be paid to do both. He'll
be paid to determine whether or not they're sane, and
then he will use that same analysis of them in
order to say, oh, yeah, this guy will definitely kill again, right,
which is really ethically questionable. The fact that he's effectively
interviewing people under false pretenses in order to diagnose them.
(45:37):
And what is you know, like, there's a lot that's
going to be like very questionable about this to a
lot of people. But you know, in you know, the
mid seventies, late you know, late sixties, mid seventies, when
kind of he ramps up doing this, there's just not
a lot of eyes on him. Right. In nineteen seventy five,
the National Institute of Mental Health publishes a monograph titled
(45:58):
Mental Health and Law, which is based on extensive research
of psychiatrists who had attempted to predict long term criminal
behavior in their patients, and it found that there was
no reliable criteria for long term predictions like the ones
doctor Grigson had started to make for alacarte payments. But again,
there wasn't really an idea that anyone would do this
for money the way that he was. So he's not
(46:21):
initially drawing a lot of attention for acting as like
a gig worker for the electric chair. You know, he
keeps testifying in case after case throughout the late seventies
and for an idea of how uniquely prolific he is.
By nineteen seventy six, which is two years after the
Texas State Supreme Court ruling, Grigson had testified against more
(46:42):
than twenty five percent of people on death row right,
so he had declared more than a quarter of people
set to be executed by Texas to be in curable
sociopaths who would kill again. Like that's those are the
kind of numbers he's putting up.
Speaker 3 (46:57):
Wow. Well, and because there's no overlapping set of ethics
between the medical profession and the legal profession. Nothing that
he did in the court of law was necessarily illegal, no,
even if it clearly went against basic ethics right in
the medical field.
Speaker 2 (47:15):
Yeah, and that's that's kind of where things because things
are going to come to a head in the Supreme
Court a couple of times over this, over the fact
that everyone in his medical discipline is saying this is bad,
but it's not illegal. Right. So while he is initially
kind of lonely, if not quite singular in doing this
for a living, he people start following him when they
(47:37):
realize how much money there is. There's so many capital
cases in Texas, there's plenty of them for a number
of psychiatrists. And people realize he's spending like a day
a week and getting like fucking sixty grand a year.
Fuck it, you know, hell, like a day a week
for sixty grand is pretty good money today. You know,
like a lot of people would kill for that gick.
(48:00):
So there had been interest. This is not a thing
like I don't want to paint it as like no
one had ever considered prior to Grigson, trying to predict
violent criminal behavior as that study I just quoted from
noted this had been something psychiatrists had considered, but like
the data suggested that like, no, we're really bad at this.
And a number of studies published in the seventies were
(48:20):
analyzed in nineteen eighty one by Professor J. Monahan for
a paper title the Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior. An
amicust brief filed to the US Supreme Court, but the
American Psychiatric Association summarizes, quote, no psychiatric procedures or techniques
had succeeded in reducing the high rate of false positive predictions,
that is, affirmative predictions of future violent behavior that are
(48:41):
subsequently proven erroneous. Professor Monaghan observed that, even allowing for
possible distortions in certain of the research data, it would
be fair to conclude that the best clinical research currently
in existence indicates that psychiatrists and psychologists are accurate and
no more than one out of three predictions of violent
behavior over a several year period. So the APA this
(49:02):
comes up like there's a Supreme Court case in nineteen
eighty one over what Grigson is doing, and it's over
a couple of issues. Number one, the fact that he's
carrying out a lot of these evaluations under false pretenses.
He's taking data for a competency hearing, and he's using
it to determine whether or not someone will kill again,
and just the whole issue with can we even let
psychiatrists predict this sort of thing? And the APA files
(49:24):
a brief saying, our best guess is that the most
accurate we can be is like thirty percent or so, right,
which is not accurate enough for determining whether or not
people should fucking die. And that's like the data that
the Supreme Court's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (49:41):
I mean, it's higher than I thought it would be.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
It's actually much lower than that. Again, this is the
data they have in the in eighty one, right, but
it's low enough to show that, like what he's doing
is an ethical And this is kind of the first
time doctor Grigson blows up and there's there's a little
bit of a media circus around this case and around
doctor Griggson, and this is when he starts being identified
as doctor Death in like a big way. I found
(50:05):
a nineteen eighty one Time article titled they call him
Doctor Death that really does a good job of summarizing
how slap dash a lot of his analyzes are right,
and this is based on reporting about like how he
worked that became a part of the Supreme Court case.
He believes that during an hour of examining a defendants
past and searching for remorse, he can determine the likelihood
of future violence. Some prisoners really get their rocks off
(50:27):
telling you about these horrible crimes, he says. In a
few cases, griggs isn't has offered an opinion without conducting
an interview, relying only on the suspects record. With enough
evidence and arrests, he maintains, you can show where a
person is coming from. About the third of the time
the pre trial interview convinces Griggson there is hope for
the defendant, and he doesn't testify for the prosecution. Dallas
defense attorney Richard Anderson suggests that Gregson fills a psychological
(50:49):
need of jurors when they're making a life or death decision.
They want to believe an individual who would do these
horrible things as a different species from them. He tells
them this person doesn't deserve to live. He makes a
decision easier, right.
Speaker 3 (51:01):
Right, right about turning them into some other category of person,
like we were talking about and he's doing it with
all the rigor of a body language analyst on Fox News.
Speaker 2 (51:11):
That's exactly it, right, But these people don't know should
they just see, Well, he is a doctor, he's a psychiatrist.
He must know he's using he's talking you know well
about it, you know, based on me being a layman
and not knowing that none of these things are like
genuinely things that he can diagnose. So you know, this
(51:31):
is like frustrating, right, And part of what makes this
frustrating is that he's not operating in like a bubble here, right, Like.
The problem isn't thus just you've got this doctor death
psychiatrist telling juries to kill people. The problem is that
most death made inmates are very poor men, right, who
do not have resources to put towards their defense. We
(51:53):
are mostly talking about people represented by public defenders. And
I have friends who are public defenders, who are in
public defense of the hardest jobs in the world. I
have a lot of respect for it. It is also
true that it is very common for people, especially in
Texas in this period of time, for lawyers who are
not qualified, who are not good at their job, to
wind up representing these guys because These are the absolute
(52:15):
shittiest shit cases, right, there's no chance you're going to
win usually, and a lot of these, you know, we'll
talk some about the data, but there's a lot of
bad representation going on here. And there's also just a
lack of resources because prosecutors are much better funded than
public defenders, So prosecutors can pay to bring in doctor Grigson,
(52:36):
whereas a public defender may not be able to bring
in someone of equal gravity. Right, they can't afford a
medical professional, so you wind up when doctor Grigson takes
the stand, he's being cross examined by some guy who
next to him seems like a Yoko Country lawyer questioning
a man of science, right, right, Right.
Speaker 3 (52:56):
Even if they could bring in an expert of their own,
there's the fundamental ethical problem that puts them in the
bind where they're going up against someone who's willing to
cross all these boundaries. Even if they could afford the
best person to oppose them, it's very unlikely, if not
totally uncertain, they would not go out there and say,
this person's never going to do anything about again.
Speaker 2 (53:18):
Right, Yeah, The best case scenario probably if you're hiring
like an ethical you know medical professionals that he says, well,
I can't say for certain one way or the other,
and doctor Death says, I can you know, right right, yeah, exactly.
Speaking of things you can't trust, it's your.
Speaker 3 (53:39):
Introduction of the ad break is what we can't trust.
Speaker 2 (53:42):
Right No, No, I mean it's the only thing you
can trust, you know, abandon your families, worship products, Jesus Christ,
and we're back. Uh yeah, we're back giving out good advice.
Speaker 3 (54:00):
So that was a heart listen.
Speaker 2 (54:03):
Yeah, yeah, they can't be gym. So if they can't
be gyms, speaking of things that can't all be Jim's
defense attorneys that said, there are defense attorneys, and there
are their medical professionals, right who from you know, kind
of the late seventies early eighties start to take issue
with what doctor Death is doing, right, which is kind
of what brings that Supreme Court case I had been
mentioning in nineteen eighty one. Right, So there's one big
(54:26):
case in nineteen eighty one, and kind of the result
of that case is very mixed. Doctor Grison is told,
you can't use competency reviews to determine whether or not
somebody will offend again. You can't just like basically double
dip this this thing, and you can't do it under
false pretenses. If you are going to evaluate someone to
determine whether or not they're incurably criminally insane and will
(54:48):
kill again, you have to tell them that's why you're
talking to them, right. But the Supreme Court also says,
but you also don't need to talk to anyone like
you could just say shit like that part's five. Actually,
So it is this classic Supreme Court really where it's like, oh, good,
I think we're on the right trail. Nope, nope, you
just actually made it worse. You just made it like
(55:10):
much worse. So that's nineteen eighty one, and then the
next major battle in this conflict is going to erupt
again at the US Supreme Court. In two years. There
are two cases involving doctor Grigson at the US Supreme Court.
That's how fucked up a psychiatrist. This is like, that's
a lot crazy. So this this nineteen eighty three case
(55:34):
is Barefoot v Estelle. Now, the underlying case that had
started us earlier before it got to the Supreme Court.
Case is a murder case obviously, and the gist of
that case is that a man with the very unlikely
name of Thomas Barefoot was convicted of murdering a police officer.
So his Texas Jerry has to determine whether or not
he's Barefoot. Yeah, yeah, fucking what a weird name, Thomas Barefoot.
(55:58):
So he goes to he gets convicted, and so after
he's convicted, a juryus to decide do we death penalty
this motherfucker? And obviously it comes down to that future
dangerousness question once again, and two psychiatrists are brought in
to give their opinions, and one of those psychiatrists is
doctor Grigson. By this point in the early eighties, what
had started, you know, Gregson had been not maybe the
(56:18):
only guys starting it, but the major what it's a
cottage industry right now, you know. And both Grigson and
his colleague are kind of in lockstep. Neither of them
talk to Barefoot, neither of them are asked to talk
to Barefoot, and this does not stop them from both
diagnosing him. Doctor Grigson calls him a criminal sociopath. That's
his diagnosis, which is again not a diagnosis. He then says, basically,
(56:44):
I like to rate sociopaths on a scale of one
to ten and then says, I put barefoot above ten.
So he can't even be consistent to the logic of
the made up psychiatry. He's proud. You can't say I
rate this on what one to ten basis, and this
guy is higher than ten. That's not the work.
Speaker 3 (57:01):
It's what he was talking about his fucking guitar amplifier.
Speaker 2 (57:06):
Even, no, it doesn't be consistent with your bullshie. If
you're gonna fake make up your own system of criminal sociopathy,
you can't then say. But also fuck the system I
made up, you know. So I know this is going
to be hard for our listeners in the year twenty
twenty five to accept. But even though that's patently bullshit,
(57:26):
the nineteen eighty three US Supreme Court kind of sucked ass,
and they ultimately upheld the Texas to hear yeah wild,
and they ultimately uphold the Texas State Court's denial of
the delay of execution and wound up creating the precedent
through this that it's totally fine for again, like this
(57:47):
is where we kind of finally decide, yes, absolutely, a
psychiatrist can just show up, never talk to a defendant.
And say, yeah, that guy seems crazy, give me my money,
you know. So there are you know again, this is
like a de controversial thing. There's a brief filed by
the APA and in which they use their most doctorly
language to say, like, what the fuck is wrong with
(58:09):
you people? Quote. Psychiatrists should not be permitted to offer
a prediction concerning the long term future dangerousness of a
defendant and a capital case, at least where the psychiatrist
purports testify as a medical expert possessing predictive expertise. The
large body of research in this area indicates that, even
under the best conditions, psychiatric predictions of long term future
dangerousness are wrong. In at least two out of every
(58:30):
three cases. The forecast of future violent conduct is at
bottom a late determination made on the basis of essentially
actuarial data to which psychiatrists and psychiatrists can bring no
special interpretive skills. The use of psychiatric testimony on this
issue causes serious prejudice that offended by dressing up the
actuarial data with an expert opinion, the psychiatrist's testimony is
(58:51):
likely to receive undue weight. It provides a false aura
of certainty and impermissibly distorts the fact finding process in
capital cases. The APA goes onto our argue that it's
also really fucked up for doctor Grigson to pretend criminal
sociopathy is a diagnosis, because it wasn't, and it shouldn't
be telling jury shit like that, because it's nonsense. Diagnoses
(59:11):
can't be made on the basis of hypothetical questions, period,
and this is the only way to describe prosecutors are
asking Gregson and his colleagues to do. Yet the Supreme
Court rules six' three on the, case And barefoot is
executed a year later at age thirty. Nine the court's
ultimate reasoning is fucking. Stupid they grant THE apa, that, like,
well you're right in your criticisms of this. Guy this
(59:33):
guy's clearly like a kuk and a con, man, right
and you're totally right he shouldn't be doing what he's.
Doing but there's nothing constitutionally impermissible about his. Testimony and
it's fine because of our sacred adversarial trial, process which
means that, obviously if this kouk is saying, bullshit another
expert can be brought in to give countervailing. Opinions which
(59:55):
will leave the jury up to be the, decider you,
know of, truth even though this is a case of
medical professional ethics and which they have no education of standing. Right,
basically it's fine because theoretically another psychiatrist could come in
and say he's, wrong your.
Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
Honor it's my professional medical opinion that the defendant is
a stinky little piss baby and you should probably kill.
Him ye should probably kill, Him and that's my medical.
Opinion and then it's the responsibility of the defendants to
bring in someone who's gonna say what that that guy's?
Insane but that doesn't seem to have happened, Either.
Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
AND i love, That like the jury is supposed to
look at these two professionals with like a dozen years
of schooling each and be, like which one of them
is right based on my experience being a guy who
didn't get out Of jerry, Duty Like i'm not you
should Do jerry?
Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
Duty?
Speaker 2 (01:00:44):
People you?
Speaker 3 (01:00:45):
Should you? Should it's.
Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
Good so there's so much wrong with this. Ruling what's
one of the things that's wildly fucked up is that
the dissent is written By Justice Harry, blackman who is
very pro death. Penalty it normally like a pro death
penalty justice is, like oh my, god what the fuck
is wrong with the rest of you, Quote the court
holds that psychiatric testimony about a defendant's future dangerous is,
(01:01:07):
admissible despite the fact that such testimony is wrong two
times out of. Three the court reaches this result even
in a capital, case because it is said the testimony
is subject to cross examination and impeachment in the present
state of psychiatric. Knowledge this is too much for. Me
one may accept this in a routine lawsuit for money,
damages but when a person's life is at, stake no
matter how heinous his, offense a requirement of greater reliability should.
(01:01:30):
Prevail in a capital, case the speciest testimony of a,
psychiatrist colored in the eyes of an impressionable jury by
the inevitable untouchability of a medical specialist, words equates with death.
Itself pretty. Good it's a pretty good. Descent that's not
a bad.
Speaker 3 (01:01:46):
One and you, KNOW i appreciate that he's willing to
acknowledge all kinds of clowning that goes on in your
standard court of law of nonsense arguments being, yeah, deemed
we can handle. That it's. Fine we'll give it a.
Pass but when it comes, yeah when it comes to killing,
somebody that's. Insane, yeah it's fucking.
Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
Nuts oh, man it reminds. ME i watched with a
friend of mine who's in the public who is a
public defender a while, back the movie And justice For
all with Al, pacino WHICH i have been told is
the best movie about a public defender ever, made and
people should definitely watch. It like there's there's some really
(01:02:26):
good pachino in going on in that, one and he
is like a Peak, pacino Peak, pachino Peak. Pacino look at.
Him he's a little bitty, guys a little baby in this.
Movie oh.
Speaker 3 (01:02:36):
CUTE i love a small Angry italian.
Speaker 2 (01:02:38):
Man, yeah just a tiny Furious italian. Man we don't
have enough of those in our who's our Angriest italian
movie star?
Speaker 3 (01:02:45):
Today oh, NO i think that era is over. Unfortunate,
yeah that's. TRAGIC i can't they all change their? Names you?
Know these days we only have Angry italian, politicians and
none of them are particular really. Good.
Speaker 2 (01:03:00):
Yeah, see we Need hollywood needs More, dei which is
of course Dramatic italian. Inclusion we're working on, that or
working on.
Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
That we did not get the letters correct, There buddy's.
Speaker 2 (01:03:15):
Fine it was close. Enough it was close.
Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
Enough you have a lot of tiny men In hollywood
and none of them happened to be angry Or italian.
Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
Though, yeah it's. Tragic, yeah well, anyway, everybody uh figure that.
Out uh find me an angry Little italian, Man steven't
you got anything to? Plug?
Speaker 3 (01:03:35):
WELL i, MEAN i think you know if you haven't
listened to the Viral texas SERIES i did for a Cool,
zone it could happen. Here please go listen to. THAT
i just wrote something angry FOR msnbc about the awful
Catastrophic texas. Flood, Yeah, jesus and that has a lot
(01:03:56):
of preventable deaths that were totally unnecessary because it's too
expensive to prevent people from dying in places where floods
are common and historically known to kill. People. Yeah so,
yeah check that stuff. Out AND i guess either there's
one QUESTION i neglected to ask OR i don't think
you got, Into. Robert was there anything in common that
(01:04:18):
a lot of these people that doctor death testified. Against
did they have anything in? Common? Like was there a?
THREAD i, mean were They.
Speaker 2 (01:04:27):
There are different races tended to be poor that now
they are not. All in, fact one of his really
like major cases that we'll talk about next episode is
like a he it's a white guy that he gets
on death, row right as the result of like the actual,
murder lying about, it you, know so like. It it's
not entirely but, like, yes his cases match with the
(01:04:50):
general trend In texas death, row which is that black
And hispanic men are.
Speaker 3 (01:04:55):
Overrepresented, right there's a long history of like trumped up
cases involving poor black men In dallas that may or
may not involve death row. Cases, yes he.
Speaker 2 (01:05:04):
Is he is is a standard matter more than a
quarter Of texas death row cases he testifies on during
the several decades that he is involved in. It and
as a, general as a, rule the Evidence i've seen
suggests that it matched the broader demographic. Problems And i'm
Not we're not going to go into a ton of
detail on that just because like the issues with the death,
(01:05:25):
penalty you're broader in. That but, yes like his his
his issues certainly do not escape the overall bias of the,
system like they are part of you, know they sort
of are in line with the overall biases of the.
System fair to, say yeah and yeah overwhelmingly, Though like
the number one thing that these folks have in common
(01:05:47):
is that they are very poor and have very little
access to any kind of legal, resources, right because a
big part of this is that a lot of these
folks are going to be, shown or at least heavily,
suggested to have been innocent after their. Conviction that's what
we're talking about into part, two and a big part
of why that. Happens it's obviously not separate from, race
and neither is, poverty but it's because the whole legal
(01:06:10):
system In texas is set up to make it very
easy to kill poor, people even when it's, known and
it's known by the police and the prosecutor that they've
got the wrong person and they're just kind of doing
it for, numbers, Right, like, well fuck, it no one's
going to stop us from killing this, guy. Right that's
a recurring trend.
Speaker 3 (01:06:28):
Here. Crazy, well on that, note thanks for having me
to talk about such lovely. Topics, Uplifting, yes?
Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
Uplifting feeling?
Speaker 3 (01:06:39):
Good, yeah, Yeah i'm feeling so much.
Speaker 2 (01:06:43):
Better everything's.
Speaker 3 (01:06:45):
FINE i feel less awful. Now, Thanks Thanks, robert.
Speaker 2 (01:06:49):
Thank, you all, right everybody good to. HELL i love.
Speaker 3 (01:06:53):
You we'll be back For part.
Speaker 1 (01:06:54):
Two behind About ustards is a production of Cool Zone.
Media for more from Cool Zone, media visit our Website
coolzonemedia dot com or check us out on The iHeartRadio,
App Apple, podcasts or wherever you get your. Podcasts behind
The bastards is now available on, YouTube new episodes Every
(01:07:15):
wednesday And. Friday subscribe to our channel YouTube dot com
slash At behind The bastards
Also media time to party.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
It's not time to party, It's time to be sad.
Welcome to Behind the Bastards, a podcast that exists to
make your week worse so that you're you're more irritable
and frustrated around your friends and family and at work
and just a just a less happy person, you know,
all together. That's our job here Behind the Bastards. Stop
talking about for some reason, this this is profitable. Uh.
(00:30):
My guest today Stephen Monacelli. Stephen, how you doing.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Oh I'm pretty awful, Yeah, pretty awful.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Yeah, yeah, that's that's the general vibe. Everybody seems to
be awful.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Did Robert get your last name right?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
What did he say? I blocked out?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I said Monta Cellly.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I mean it's Mona Sely or Monoicelli. It just depends
on you know, which side of Ellis Island you're on.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Fair enough, that's right, the right side. I could do
like I could do like a it's it like gesture,
Yeah you're Italian? Oh yeah no no, no, Steven and
I can both say the two slurs that that Italians don't.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Yeah, anyone can, anyone.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
It's always acceptable, It's always fine.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
I feel very outnumbered today because I don't have a
beard and you're both Italian and the blonde hair.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
I'm not. You know, there's there's there's there's some wonderful
things about having Italian heritage. But I think when your
country invents fascism, everyone gets to make fun of your
your accent forever. Like that's just a fair rule. That's
just a fair rule.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Hasn't even really been that long, that's.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Than a censure, just about a little over a century
since it started. I guess, Stephen, how do you feel
about Texas, the state that we both came from and
that you still reside in.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Oh, complicated feelings, very complicated feelings, Robert, do we have
time for that? I'm not sure.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Well, that's what we're going to be talking about all week. Specifically,
we're going to be talking about one of the things
Texas is most fai miss for. I'm not talking about
shiner bock beer. I'm not talking about some other less
pleasant things than shiner bock beer. Well I am, I'm
talking about one of those things. I'm talking about our
death row.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Oh, I thought you were going to talk about them
trading Luka Dantrits to my Lakers.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
No, I feel like it's been a long time since
anyone in Texas made good sports related choices. Stephen, what
do you know about Texas death row?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Well, I know it's pretty bad. It's one of the
worst in the nation. Yeah, it's sizable. And there was
a period of time, I believe when we got rid
of the death penalty and then we decided to bring
it back.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
If I'm not mistaken, Yeah, there was a period of
time in which, like the whole country was kind of like,
we need to take a look at how we handle
like because the death penalty was stoped nationwide for a
while and then reinstated in nineteen seventy six after some
Supreme Court rulings. We'll talk a little bit about that.
But since the death penalty was reinstated in seventy six,
(03:11):
Texas has executed more people than any other state. We're
at I think five hundred and ninety five right now.
I've seen a couple of different numbers, but they're all
around six hundred, like since nineteen seventy six, like somewhere
in that vicinity. Last year, I think we Texas executed
five people. So we execute a lot of folks, and
(03:33):
as we'll talk about we've executed a lot of folks
that we know are definitely innocent over the last fifty
years or so, Right, it happens a lot, and.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Even recently, Yeah, in the past year or two. This
is high profile cases.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Yeah. And if you look at like a lot of
Innocence Project cases where it's like, oh, we now have
evidence this guy was pretty much definitely innocent, but they
got executed. Texas is often the state that they were
executed in. And today we're not talking about the whole
system a different episode. Probably, we're talking about one guy
who had an outsized role in making the system the
way it was and who has probably done more damage
(04:08):
to psychiatry as a discipline than maybe any other single
figure outside of like, you know, the Nazi period. Right, Like,
we're talking about a guy who was known as doctor
Death but in Texas, and you know, there's another doctor
Death that was famous, Jack Cavorkian, who's the like advocate
for a patient's right to die. I think if you
(04:29):
you and I grew up around the same time, you
probably remember hearing stories about Jack Kavorkian, who also got
called that he was a very different guy. There's some
like weird and questionable stuff about Kavorkian, some like eugenics
edge stuff that he wrote about privately, But he's not
really someone we'd focus on in this show. I think
fundamentally what he was doing is like more or less fine,
(04:50):
you know, with some potential room for quibbles there. The
doctor death we're talking about is Texas's doctor death, and
he did not assist people who wanted to die with
doing so painlessly and with dignity. Instead, he took it
upon himself to use a psychiatric degree to feed dozens
and dozens of human beings to Texas's death row. He
(05:11):
was the doctor who would sit down and tell a jury,
this man has to be executed or he will kill again.
That was his business. And his name was doctor James Grigson.
Have you ever heard of this guy?
Speaker 3 (05:23):
So, to be honest, no, when you first reached out
and mentioned doctor death, there was another doctor in North
Texas who had also been given that moniker.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
We've got a couple of them, huh.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yeah, yeah, And so that was the person who I
immediately thought you're referring.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
To Nago Texas mm hm.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
But he was like some surgeon and plane. Oh and botched.
Stuff happened and a bunch of people died. So yeah, I'm.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Sure we'll cover him bad, Like elective surgery stories is
one of our bread and butter. It's just like bad
you know, doctors who get people killed that way.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
But Gregson, No, didn't hear about him.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
No, Yeah, there's a you know, it's awful obviously if
someone's just like incompetent or not taking care and kills
people accidentally. But this is a guy who, like his
business was convincing juries to kill people, right, and it
made him like a fairly wealthy man. And so yeah,
that's the guy we're talking about today, doctor James Grigson,
(06:23):
who was born James Paul Grigson Junior on January thirtieth
of nineteen thirty two in Texarkana, Texas. And if our
listeners haven't been to Texarkana, how would you describe texar Cana.
It's like a little bit of Texas, a little bit
of Louisiana, a little bit of Oklahoma, you know.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Yeah, the lake culture is a big thing. Lake Texoma
is a huge lake. And so yeah, I think think
about kind of the grimy, like you know, swampy bayou
culture but it's inland around a lake.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Yeah, yeah, inland swamp culture is, I guess a good
way to put it. When I was a kid, because
I grew up in like southern Oklahoma for a while,
I had to go there to get allergy shots. So
Texarcana is permanently on my shit list. Is like a
city of pain, but not for any good reason, just
because they had a doctor in the town I grew
up and had fuck all, So I guess I shouldn't
(07:16):
be angry at them anymore. But yeah, I didn't like
any allergy shots anyway. That's where That's where James Paul
Griggson Junior is born. His mother is ethel May McLeod
and his father is James Paul Griggson Senior. Obviously, we
have very little about his upbringing. The few details we
do get paint a picture of a kid who came
from like a comfortable background, probably upper middle class. It's
(07:40):
a little hard for me to tell, but he admitted
in a nineteen ninety interview that as a kid, his
family's money came from the tombstone business. Right they had
a license to sell. There's apparently a trademark type of
marble that everyone used to use for headstones that's called
rock of ages, right and for whatever. And you had
to have like a license to like you had to
(08:02):
be like a distributor to sell this shit, right, this
one type of fucking marble that only this one company
could license, and his family were the only ones who
could sell it in like four states, including Arkansas and Texas.
So my guess is they did pretty well. Right. That's
one of those businesses like people are always going to
be dying. So yeah, I mean, the tombstone business not
(08:24):
a bad one to be in. And it's interesting to
me that kind of from the very earliest moments of
his life, this guy's financial comfort is always tied to
death as a business right for his whole life.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
So crazy, it's a bit.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Poetic, yeah, it really is. Now. One of the few
details that we get of his childhood came from an
article called Travels with Doctor Death by journalist Ron Rosenbaum
for Vanity Fair, and Rosenbaum quotes him as claiming in
this interview quote he and his brother would come home
from work and lock themselves into epic, fratricidal chess matches
(08:57):
hour after hour, night after night. The doctor's brother went
on to become a professional pool shark and gambler, so
he's both this very competitive person. His big influence growing
up is kind of a con man, right, but he
doesn't go for like the petty conman business. He chooses academia, right.
That's he and his brother split. His brothers goes off
to be a pool shark, but James has got to
(09:19):
have that like DNA, that like desired, I've always got
to win. And also I have kind of loose morals
about how I make my money, right, that seems to
be something he and his brother are both kind of
sympatico on. He goes to Texas A and M with
a small tight group of friends who all opt for
careers in the navy, but Jim gravitates towards science and
he winds up entering a pre med program. He goes
(09:41):
to Southwestern Medical School and while he's starting college. While
he's starting medical school, he gets married to Mary Lee
Stone and they start having kids, eventually four of them.
He supports his growing family by working two full time
jobs and three part time jobs at the same time,
per his obituary, So that's what his his family would
later claim, I don't know, if he's working what is
(10:04):
that one hundred and forty hours a week something like
that and going to school. But that's what he later claims.
This guy is not a reliable narrator, So I don't know.
Maybe he's not putting in quite that much effort, or
maybe he found some really good bullshit jobs. Either way,
he gets into medicine and he really likes doing his
clinical rotations. That obituary notes Jim loved the excitement of
(10:27):
the emergency room, but the hours of a psychiatrist allowed
more family time. He loved the challenge of figuring out puzzles,
the human brain being the most complicated. When finished with
formal school, Jim thought he could learn more by teaching.
He taught psychiatry at Southwestern for four years. During this period,
he developed a specialty of forensic psychiatry, which became the
passion of his career. And that's the kind of clean
(10:49):
version of his backstory that clearly he told his family
and that yeah, they wanted to believe, is that he
starts teaching and he just kind of develops an interest
in forensics psychiatry right as it's developing as a discipline,
and just falls in love with the field. Rights, that's
what he's saying. So pretty anodyne backstory so far. Nothing
(11:10):
too sketchy here, except for the fact that forensic psychiatry
kind of has a sketchy history as a discipline. Right.
It's not like it's not always been the quest for
knowledge of the human brain. A lot of times it's
been the quest for like, well, I believe certain things
about people that I don't like, and it's really nice
to be able to claim scientifically that this is true. Right,
(11:33):
you know you've got there's not a thick a line
separating psychiatry from phrenology in the early part of the
twentieth century as we'd.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Like, right, I mean, you know, not to mix up
our fields too much. But it dovetails with the lovely
practice of lobotomies, which right, some of us wish we
could bring back at this point in time for our
own just.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
For mercy's sake. Yeah. Yeah, maybe they had a point, right, Yeah,
A nice pick in the old frontal lobe sounds nice
right about now.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
They might have been onto something like FREYD but that's
another conversation.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Yeah, yeah, but an.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Apt field for someone who may have had a slightly
con manesque tendency to fall into in the time of
this story.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
It's a perfect field for that. And you know, it's
perfect in part because it's really new, Like forensic psychiatry
is an idea was less than a century old when
he kind of starts studying it, right, it had kind
of begun, I mean it kind of it depends on
how you date it, but somewhere around a little over
a century to less than a century old when he
(12:35):
starts going to school, right, And that doesn't mean that
it had been kind of really settled in any sort
of way as a discipline for most of that period
of time. We kind of start seeing the early gasps
of what becomes forensic psychiatry near the middle, you know,
in the thirties and forties, the eighteen thirties, eighteen forties
to kind of the mid to late eighteen hundreds, and
initially when the field first got involved, when kind of
(12:57):
psychiatry first starts getting involved in criminal justice, in the
solving of crime, and you know, the judging of people
who have been accused of crimes. The work of psychiatrists
who are getting into that field is kind of initially
less focused on what it will be which is, are
these people, you know, competent to stand trial? Was this
person aware of what they were doing? Are they likely
(13:19):
to offend again? It was less It was less focused
on stuff like that. Then odd stuff like the adjudication
of wills, right Like, Initially, forensic psychiatrists were often brought
in because someone would die and give their money to
someone the family didn't want it to go to, and
so you'd bring in this kind of proto forensic psychiatrist
to determine whether or not the person who had died
(13:40):
was compassmentous when they signed their will. And I found
a really interesting article on this because it dovetails with
what Grigson's career is going to become in the American
Academy of Psychiatry Law Journal, and that article notes the
evidence suggests that post mortem diagnoses of insanity were employed
through the middle decades of the nineteenth century to maintain
stable and predictable patterns of property conveyance in the New Republic,
(14:03):
but such diagnoses then became something of a fad, a
way to raid states. Courts and legislatures reacted against that
trend during the last decades of the nineteenth century, when
fundamental social stability was no longer an issue in order
to protect individual testators and limit the power of forensic psychiatry.
So it starts off as a way for people to
go like, hey, I think I should get some of
(14:24):
that guy's money, and if I can hire a better
professional than the other guy, right, then I can get this.
I can have this adjudicated. And so psychiatrists start throwing
themselves I'm an expert on whether or not someone I
can tell it by their handwriting or whatever. And it
becomes this huge grift and it's just destroying people's estates
and ability to inherit. And so the courts have to
(14:44):
come and be like all of these fucking psychiatrists who
are getting in the middle of the probate process of
the estate process are like Conman, and like, we need
to get through the fuck out of here. This has
to stop. And that basic pattern is going to be
repeat itself in the in death penalty cases in Texas
from like the seventies through the nineties. Right, But it's
(15:04):
the same pattern. So I think it's really interesting that
it happens first a century earlier in like the estate
and will process just Christ It's so cool, of course, it.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Starts with the money, but then as we develop this
larger carceral state and institutionalization process, it bleeds into that,
and then we I guess, guess, get to what we're
talking about today, this guy who seems like a real
piece of work based on my brief reading.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Yes, And it's interesting because it's kind of killed fairly
quickly in a couple of decades. When the thing at
risk is rich people's inheritance. Right when it's about that,
governments start acting pretty quickly to put the kibosh on
it once things get out of hand. So when the
grift switches to like, let's just convince juries to kill
(15:52):
poor people. When I will talk about how they're doing
that later, don't worry. But when it switches to that,
there's not as much interest in fixing it, right because
no one's got any money. It's cool stuff. You love
to see it. So basically, the first forensic psychiatrists, or
a lot of the first forensic psychiatrists in this country.
I mean, you wouldn't have called them that, but these
(16:13):
are you know, they're in that line of ascent. We're
hired guns, right that were brought in, you know, in
order to come to a specific conclusion based on who
was paying them, and that you know, a lot of
what was happening here was not really in any way
different from bribery. Now, another thing is going on in
this this early developing field throughout the middle of the
eighteen hundreds, not just in the US, but over in Europe,
(16:35):
and this is that the court systems and the legal
systems of western nations are increasingly interested in how you
define insanity in a legal sense. Right now, this has
been done going back, you can go back to classic
now you can find cases in like ancient Greece and
stuff that you know, are are relevant to this. So
there's this is not just you know, a century or
(16:56):
so of history in terms of people being interested in
and the legal profession. But it really starts to get professionalized,
you know, in the middle of the eighteen hundreds, and
it's kind of in this early modern period that people
start accepting and building into the legal system the idea
that someone can be too out of their mind to
be is truly responsible for their actions. Right that there
(17:17):
is a degree of If a person is you know,
dealing a degree with a certain degree of in capacitation,
they're not fully responsible for even the most heinous crimes, right,
That's one of the things going on here. There's some
less positive things going on too, including again eugenics is
happening in this period, so there's also interest in how
do we determine who's sick so we can stop them
from breeding and passing on their sickness. You know, that's
(17:39):
the dark side of this. But you know, one of
the good things is that early defense attorneys are a
lot of the people who are most interested in pushing
we need to be defining when someone is not compassmentous, right,
even if they act absolutely did the crime, because that
should matter. And there's a bit of a debate I found,
you know, some articles from historians who kind of study
(18:00):
the history of insanity as a legal concept. There's a
little bit of a debate as to whether or not
we should see this medical concept as something that was
first pushed by legal experts, primarily defense attorneys, in order
and in other words, and thus is an example of
the expansion of the power of law. Right that like
the law was really responsible for pushing this concept into
(18:24):
the science, right, and for incentivizing psychiatrists, early psychiatrists to
have an interest in declaring people to be insane. Right,
that that was something that came about in part because
the law was pushing it. And one of the people
who argue this was Michelle fucoh Per an article in
the Journal of Medical History. Though psychiatric expertise for a
(18:44):
brief moment may have been introduced as an alternative mode
of power, it soon found its place alongside the law
in the medico legal apparatus of the nineteenth century, thereby
expanding power rather than usurping it. In this manner, the
alleged humanization of punishment in the nineteenth century was countered
by the expansion of disciplinary power. In other words, while
some of this is good, the fact that we're saying, well,
some people really can't be held responsible for their actions,
(19:07):
what you're also seeing here is the law asserting a
degree of control over like who gets a full set
of rights because of their mental state? Right, And that
that's kind of the dark side of this.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Right.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
It wasn't just a matter of whether Johnny did a
crime and was out of his gourd and yeah, shouldn't
be held accountable for it. It was a matter of
should Jane be put into an institution where their freedom
of movement is restricted, and they applied with medications or
forced to take some sort of procedures they would not
(19:39):
otherwise have agreed to do.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Yeah, if the law is saying, hey, we need you
to define insanity because we're going to use it to
declare that certain groups of people are treated differently and
restricted in different ways by the law, that's really an
expansion in the power of law in a meaningful way.
So Yeah. In other words, there's kind of a couple
of different magic major developments that set the stage for
(20:02):
our doctor death right in the late eighteen hundreds in
the early nineteen hundreds, which is that forensic psychiatrists are
often being used as hired guns to secure desired results
in court, and that that's very much at the root
of the profession, and that the concept of insanity and
definitions of mental health become incorporated into the legal process
in a way that is going to make medical diagnoses
(20:22):
a relevant aspect of how the state can prosecute people
and what it can do to them. Rosenbaum, who's the
writer who spent the most time with doctor Griggson, describes
him as a country boy with a killer instinct who,
after getting his MD attended a psychiatric residency at Parkland Hospital.
He again he teaches for a while, but Rosenbaum asserts
this doesn't provide him with enough of a challenge or
(20:44):
enough of an opportunity to compete, right, And that's kind
of this journalist who knows the guy best is like,
I think it's naturally there's not an adversarial process in
traditional psychiatry, your psychist, it's supposed to be fighting you,
And like this guy, what's psychiatry? He wants to win
at psychiatry. So the court process provides him if he
(21:04):
can get involved in court cases, then he's part of
an adversarial process, which means he can win and someone
else can lose. And he could prove that he's better
right than someone else put points on the board, could
put points on the board. Right. The kind of traditional
way good science and academia's supposed to go did not
suit the quote pool shark at him, and so he decides,
(21:24):
I'm going to find a way that I can win
at psychiatry. And that's why he gets into forensic psychiatry. Now,
Rosenbaum claims it's the duel of wits with dangerous criminals,
which enthralled Grigson, and this is likely that Grigson would
say certain things himself. He had some quotes where he
woud basically be like Batman, like I'm at a war
with crime, right, criminals, Like I'm arraying myself against the
(21:47):
most dangerous and deadly criminal masterminds in the world. And
he really wants to portray himself as this genius chess master.
He'll talk a lot about his childhood chess games and
then you know, these adversarial process with all these murderers
and whatnot, and he wants you to look at them
as like he's constantly every week he's fighting Hannibal Lecter, right,
(22:08):
like that's who he's going up it gets. And that's
just not true. That's not at all true. And we're
going to talk about how off this belief he has
about himself that he really pushed in every interview we
ever did is. But first we're going to talk about
some ads. Oh Jesus, yeah, good response to ads, and
(22:36):
we're back. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm
planning on purchasing that product and or service. You know,
I'm gonna use money as a means of exchange in
order to buy goods and services. That sounds fun to me.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
We love the money form, We love the Money's podcast.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
What kind of money do you use? Steven? Are you
one of those? Do you like to drag around those big,
like five hundred pounds wheels and whirl them across the
ground and use those as a means of exchange?
Speaker 3 (23:02):
I like cuneiform tablets, yeah, or any anything that you
can really feel the heft to it when it's in
your pocket.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Yeah, yeah, because that's I like that too, so much
better than like, I never call a company anymore. I'm
not going to get stuck on the phone with a chatbot.
If I have a complaint, I'm going to like hammer
into like a mud tablet. I'm gonna hammerer in a
mud and dry it, and then I'm going to mail
that cuneiform tablet to whatever company and complain about the
poor great copper that they're selling me. You know.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
The only issue is I find that they don't take
it on the online gambling sites that may or may
not have been advertised before this. No, So that's the
that's the one downside. But I'm keeping myself straight these days, So.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
I'm doing what I can that's good. Cuneiform is good
for that. Speaking of keeping yourself straight, doctor Grigson is
fascinated by people who can't keep on the straight and narrow, right.
These are had been victual criminals. These are folks who
have serious impulse control issues, which is obviously the majority
of folks who wind up committing capital crimes. Right now,
(24:11):
there is our number of kind of different psychiatric diagnoses
that we use today for you know this, these kind
of people. The word Grigson uses and the word that
you find over and over again and all of the
reporting on his work is sociopath.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Right.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
He is fascinated with sociopaths. He likes to diagnose people
as sociopaths. Right. And it's very important that you understand,
because this is my pet peeve. Sociopath and sociopathy are
not medical diagnoses. They absolutely are not. No one is
diagnosed as a sociopath. It's not a medical diagnosis. It
(24:49):
is a term people like to use because they think
it is, but it's not.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
Now.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
It used to be the term that was proper that
people tended to use kind of interchangeably with sociopath is psychopath, right,
And psychopathy is what a lot of a lot of
these people, a lot of like people who commit murder,
particularly people who again are kind of these career criminals,
career violent criminals who have a lot of issues with
impulse control, who don't really seem to have much in
(25:17):
the way of empathy. Psychopathy is the term that was
used for a long time to describe them. We don't
use that anymore, right. The current diagnosis that those people
tend to be given today is antisocial personality disorder or APD, right,
which is replaced what we call psychopathy. Right. But it's
important you know that at the time doctor Grigson was working,
(25:38):
psychopath would have been the medical term for the people
that he was declaring to be sociopaths. And when you're
talking to like a regular person, like when your friends like,
oh yeah, man, my boss did this or this, and
I think he's a sociopath, It's fine, I don't care.
I'm not going to I don't correct somebody. Just in
your daily life. If you're a psychiatrist, you should get
the term right. Right. You shouldn't just make You should
(26:00):
just be using a term that's not a medical diagnosis
for a guy that you're declaring has an illness that
makes him more dangerous for the purpose of a death
penalty hearing, right, which is what's going on here. This
just really bugs me.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
Now.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Psychopaths, which is again the term when he's doing these diagnoses,
or people with APD, which is what we use today,
are people who don't feel guilty for impulsive or violent actions.
They lie to others easily and without qualm, They rarely
have close relationships, and they often fall into criminal behavior.
Hannibal Lecter is probably still the number one cultural touchstone
(26:35):
as to what we used to call psychopaths. But the
vast majority of people with APD are not geniuses, and
they're not good planners.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
Right.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
That's kind of a key aspect. This isn't everyone, but
most people with APD have a horrible impulse control. They're
not good at planning. They're not good at like plotting
out genius getaways.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
Right.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
That's why a lot of these people get caught is
they don't tend to be a lot of it talks
about how they below average IQ. I have my issues
with IQ, but these are not people who make good
decisions that allow them to be like Dexter, right, They're
not a one step ahead of the authorities. They're deciding
in a moment to commit a violent crime and then
running like fucking leaving a shitload of evidence. That's the norm, Right.
(27:15):
These people are not masterminds. The ones who are you know,
you know, might have been diagnosed to psychopac or of APD,
who don't have these problems, who do have good impulse control,
who are better at planning. We no tend to gravitate
towards one of a couple of different careers. They are
overrepresented in business, like MBA's executives. They are overrepresented in
(27:36):
law enforcement, and they are overrepresented in the clergy. These
are they go for jobs. The folks who do have
that hannibal lector mastermind capability, they go for jobs where
they're protected right by what their their job is, or
people don't look at them or assume because of their
social status that they'll be doing the fucked up shit
that they're doing.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
It also provides them a certain amount of power to
wheel over others to fulfill whatever those twisted desires are
and then cover it up should they need to.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Right, And there's there's also like, you know, like all
of this stuff is a spectrum, Right, people have aspects
of this, like you know, the there's a degree to
which certain things that we tend to attribute to this
group of people, like not being overly empathetic, can be
a benefit. If you're a surgeon, maybe it's not that
bad that you don't really get bothered by cutting into
(28:26):
somebody because your job is to cut into people, right,
which insurgents are overrepresented, you know, with aspects of kind
of the things, And this criteria has been shifting. We've
really started to accept in the last couple of decades that,
like our old diagnoses of psychopathy were pretty flawed, and
they're still pretty flawed, but like you know, we were
moving towards a more rational understanding of this whole phenomenon.
(28:50):
But it's important to know that even by the standards
of the time, doctor Grigson, when he talks about these
these murderers who he calls sociopaths, he's just wrong, Like
he's just strong by the medical standards of the time
and certainly by the standards of the day. So in
the nineteen sixties, you know, fascinated by sociopaths, doctor Grigson
starts selling himself as a forensic psychiatrist to prosecutors and
(29:12):
defense attorneys. Initially, his business is limited to what we're
called competency exams. You know, this is deciding if it
defend into saying for the purposes of standing trial. And
you know, there's nothing wrong necessarily with that idea. I mean,
there's some issues with how it was applied, but this
is not immediately a problematic field. He would claim that
he got into doing this because when he first started
(29:34):
he had a lot of arrant beliefs about psychiatry as
a result of his liberal education. Quote at first I
got the shit connd out of me, and medical school
I was as liberal as any psychiatrist you'll ever meet.
You know, most psychiatrists will say, if you commit a crime,
there's something wrong with you. And I don't really think
that's true because like most people who commit crimes, it's like,
(29:55):
I don't most psychiatrists would be like, oh, you're you
got like a possession of small amount of marijuana, you
must have a mental illness or right, or you didn't
pay a speeding ticket for too long because you couldn't
afford it and you got a warrant, you have a
mental ill And that's like even like petty theft I
get very rarely is going to get you diagnosed with
a mental illness, Like I don't think most psychiatrists say this, No, no,
(30:18):
not at all, No. And it's you know, it's also
probably not even the case with murder necessarily, right, because
most of the evidence, even at that time, suggests that
the majority of murders are crimes of passion, right, which
is people who are otherwise sane and who are otherwise functional,
who lose their shit in a moment in a disastrous way, right,
not somebody who they're not. But most murderers are not
(30:40):
people who want to keep murdering, right. It's like a
thing that happens in a moment of passion. And you know,
it's debatable generally as to whether or not there's anything
you would diagnose them with. So I just think he's
I think he's miss like he's describing the rest of
his feel badly because his entire career is going to
be spent defining himself in awe position to every other psychiatrist,
(31:01):
Like he hates everyone else in this discipline because he
thinks they're all wrong, so he has to make up
lies about what his fellows are doing. So he claims that,
like he comes in with all these ideas about you know, oh,
all these people must just be sick, and then he
spends several thousand hours interviewing accused murderers and he starts
to understand, Oh, no, all of the other psychiatrists are wrong.
(31:22):
These people aren't sick. Quote, they were just mean. I
often think there ought to be a diagnosis, you know, mean,
son of a bitch. So really good scientist here. Just
that sounds rigorous, that's falsifiable. I love a psychiatrist who
says shit like this.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Incredible, incredible. I'm trying to imagine someone in a modern
profession just saying that they spoke to a bunch of people. Yeah,
I mean, it reminds me of thinking that it has
something to do with humors, like, oh, they're just all mean.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
They got means son of a bitch disease.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Nothing more to it. He can't read into it any further.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Yeah, it's literally like that's from The Simpsons when Homer
gets an elephant at the end, where there's like some
animals are just dicks. So over time, he goes from
declaring people not competent or competent to stand trial to
declaring more and more defendants perfectly sane. Right Like he
starts as he's doing this, coming to the conclusion that
like almost nobody deserves to, you know, get off or
(32:21):
deserves to have you know, their sentence mitigated as the
result of this, and his justification for this shift is
something that he kind of perfectly crafted from his media
appearances to appeal to the law and order set in
North Texas, which is where he mostly practiced. Quote these days,
when they'll have tears fallen down from their eyes, I've
learned to give this response. You can knock that shit off.
(32:42):
You're not fooling me a bit, and you can't believe it.
Tears will just dry up like that. Okay, So he's
crafting his image perfectly for the place and time that
he's set in, right this, this is going to go
over pretty well with juries. He's very popular with Texas
jury's for a long time. He also wears a cowboy
hat a lot of the time, which is like de
(33:04):
rigueur for a certain kind of guy. Anyway, it's a
little unclear to me whether or not, you know, he
ever had a liberal period as a psychiatrist. If this
is just again part of the image he crafts because
it sells well that like, oh, I used to be
one of those liberal soft on crime weenies, but then
I learned the truth. Right either way, he starts testifying
(33:25):
about the mental status of people accused of capital crimes
in nineteen sixty seven, and the main shift here is
that he's no longer testifying is this person competent to
stand trial? After sixty seven? He's primarily testifying should this
person be subjected to the death penalty? Right? And to
explain why, why is a psychiatrist involved in this? Why
(33:46):
does that matter? Right? Why would you allow a psychiatrists
to testify about this? This comes down to something that
is not quite unique to Texas, but is almost unique
to Texas in this period. So his first year's pcting
come during a very messy time for the death penalty.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
There are a bunch of subcommittees and committee meetings in
the early seventies after there's this kind of moratorium and
the death penalty in Texas where they're trying to figure out,
how do we as a modern state continue to have
a death penalty? What should that look like?
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Right?
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Because you know we're past the ages and Texas rangers
just going in and hanging people. Right, we can't do
that anymore, you know, Walker, Texas ranger doesn't look nearly
as good if he's literally putting people into gallows. So
how do we actually like build this into our system
in a way that's modern? And this is this is
part of there's this massive debate nationwide at the federal
(34:39):
level over the death penalty and like what the laws
should be about it in Texas. Being Texas, we're going
to want to find a way to both keep executing
people and justify it as a matter of necessity.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
We don't want to seem backwards while we're doing it. So,
like most Texas laws, the process of creating a modern
death penalty standard to kind of replace the old ways
was rushed and messy. Texas Law Review describes the Texas
legislature's process as quote somewhat confused, which is generally accurate.
Legislature works today. Time is a flat circle, my friend.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
Generous description, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Generous description. Kind to the state and the House and Senate,
who both wind up with different and conflicting standards. Right,
they both proposed like very different sets of rules for
how the death penalty off ought to work, and they
find themselves having to reconcile this in a very short timeframe.
And I want to quote from a passage by the
Texas Law Review to give you an idea of how
messy the process was. With only Memorial Day weekend to
(35:40):
go before adjournment, the House called a conference committee to
resolve the differences between the two bills. On the very
last day, the conferees presented a scheme which appeared in
neither the House nor the Senate bill, along with newly
minted language about a probability that the defendant would be
a continuing threat. That same day, both houses passed the
committee report by huge margins without specifically considering the new
languge on future dangerousness. So to get out, in order
(36:03):
to get out for the long weekend. After like deliberating
and coming up with their own plans, they back something
completely different that no one's read, because like, look, man,
are we going to give up? We I got to
get out to the lake like it's hot.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
It's hot during the legislature. You gotta get that often. Yeah,
come on, got the barbecue ready to go.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Right right? So the vague and poorly written nature of
the initial legalies leads to several years of disputes and
ultimately a State Supreme Court case in nineteen seventy six.
The system that results from this is indeed a modern one,
and that it creates a several step roadmap towards deciding
when and who would be executed. Right, Basically, there's a
(36:44):
the Texas legislature builds a flow chart of death to determine, like,
we've convicted this guy, should we kill him? So the
first thing that has to happen is the jurors have
to agree unanimously that the convicted murder had deliberately sought
out to kill their victim. Right, if somebody just like
drunk and hit someone with a car, that's not a
death penalty case. Right, there's not a deliberate intent there,
(37:04):
you know. Or if you're just Yosemite samming and accidentally
shoots some guy, there's not intent. So the next thing
they have to agree on is that there's some probability
that the defendant would go on to carry out future
acts of violence. And then the third thing they have
to decide is that, having taken everything that happened into account,
there had been no provocation that had inspired the murderous violence. Right,
(37:26):
So someone didn't punch you and then you shot them,
and you know that's not an equivalent exchange of force,
but you were provoked, right, That would kind of disqualify
you from the death penalty, even if you'd get punished otherwise. Now,
of these three points, you know, the first I don't
agree with their being this with a state like ours
doing the death penalty, but those the first and third
(37:47):
point are at least like, I see why they're in there, right.
You want to make sure this is isn't just a
crime of passion, and you want to make sure they're
like this, there's an a mitigating factor, right, that this
wasn't part of a fight. That second one, though, that
it's really problematic. That's pre crime shit, right, I mean
they've committed a they've been a convicted of a crime.
But you are asking a jury to say, in the future,
(38:10):
will this person do violence if not killed. You're asking
the jury to step outside of any evidence and make
a prediction about someone's future behavior. Do you see how
that's maybe a problem.
Speaker 3 (38:21):
Yeah, it's I mean, it's certainly a distinction. And the
only parallel I can think of is whether someone is
released on bail or not because they might be considered
some sort of flight risk or maybe a public safety risk.
But if you contain that within the boundaries of holding
someone in detainment or holding them behind.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
Bars, right, this isn't a permanent status. We're not determining
this person's whole life, right, you know, even though that
doesn't make it not problematic.
Speaker 3 (38:49):
Yet there's a possibility that they could, you know, spend
time in jail and show that they are of no
threat and then you release, right, So yeah, I mean
it is it is a huge difference. It's it's requiring
people to look into the future with yes, no real basis.
Speaker 2 (39:03):
Yeah, which is which is like weird. Right. And so
this second thing, right, this second like point on the
flow chart becomes known to the legal community in Texas
as special issue number two. Right, And that's really what
a lot of death penalty cases and are going to
come down to a special issue number two. Right, is
this person going to commit more violent crimes if they
are left alive, you know, for the rest of their
(39:25):
life in prison or whatever. And this is almost unique
in western jurisprudence.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
Right.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
In essence, the state of Texas has codified the duty
of a jury in death penalty cases to predict the future.
Only one other state in the United States required a
finding a future dangerousness when considering the death penalty. It's
such a niche piece of like legal theory or legal
you know, procedure, that very few people outside of Texas
are even aware that special issue number two exists, And
(39:53):
the broader national psychiatric community doesn't seem to really have
initially seen this as an issue that might concern in
their discipline, right, because they're you know, it's just that
they've got fifty states they're not concerned with like this initially,
as like, why would you even think psychiatrists would get
involved in the special issue number two? Right? This would
prove to be an error because if juries were now
(40:15):
going to be asked to determine will a person kill
again if left alive, prosecutors are going to start looking
to hire experts, special experts for court cases who can
speak to what kind of behavior is predictable for what
kind of defendant. So doctor Grickson is going to be
among if not the very first of these guys of
(40:36):
these psychiatrists, right, And he describes how he fell into
this line of work in doing so as a natural
evolution of his previous work. Per an article, in time,
he was going about his normal duties, evaluating people for
commitment proceedings, when quote one court veteran suddenly thought, hey,
here's a sane psychiatrist. Instead of playing golf on Wednesday,
I started doing legal work. Right, So that happens in
(40:58):
like the early seventies. He started, like he's been kind
of evaluating people in a similar way for a while,
but now it's sort of codified into like, this is
how we're determining whether or not to execute people, you know.
By the mid seventies, and in short order, court cases
now take up most of his professional time. He's making
like one hundred dollars an hour, bringing in some sixty
(41:20):
one thousand dollars a year in the seventies, which is
hundreds of thousands today. This is a lot of money
in the seventies. Yeah, this is probably somewhere in the
neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars a year in
modern money. Right, And he's again he's doing like a
day of work a week, right, So nice gig if
you can get it.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
Yeah, he's got the pat sage Jack career path.
Speaker 2 (41:42):
Yeah. When interviewed about doctor Grigson, University of Texas law
professor George Dick said he is skillful and persuasive, and
he doesn't talk down to the jury. Most importantly, Dick said,
Grigson is more willing than most colleagues to make predictions
about a defendant's future behavior and really strong ones. Right.
He's willing to say this person will definitely, as opposed
(42:03):
to other psychiatris who get up and be like, well,
you know, it's not uncommon for people with this to reoffend.
But I can't say he will say, oh, I can
guarantee you one hundred percent this person will kill again
if you don't execute them now, right, You're not supposed
to do that.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
No, he was given his clients what they were paying for.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
It sounds like, yes, exactly. And there's going to be
research in the future that shows that when whether or
not psychiatrists are hired by the defense or prosecution, biases
their findings on individuals that they're asked to like evaluate, right,
that like, yeah, who is paying you matters, you know,
(42:45):
and that's important. None of this is blind. It's not
the court hiring someone to say, just tell us one
way or the other. Right, This is prosecution being like
I want another I want to put a death penalty
thing on my belt, you know, like make sure this
guy we can fry this son of a bitch. Now,
this is again not something that psychiatrists should be doing,
(43:05):
or that was ever considered to be okay within the
mainstream of psychiatry in this period. But doctor Grigson takes
it upon himself to make himself Texas's most recognized expert
on whether or not someone will kill again if left alive.
Writing for Vanity Fair, Rosenbaum describes quote, this is where
the doctor comes in. He'll take the stand, listen to
a recitation of facts about the killing and the killer,
(43:26):
and then, usually without examining the defendant, without ever setting
eyes on him until the day of the trial, tell
the jury that as a matter of medical science, he
can assure them the defendant will pose a continuing danger
to society as defined by number two. That's all it takes.
What makes the doctor so effective, Both prosecution and defense
lawyers will tell you this is his bedside manner with
(43:46):
the jury. He is kindly gregarious, country doctor manner. His reassuring,
beautifully modulated East Texas drawl helped jurors get over the
hump and do the deed, says one bitter defense lawyer.
He's kind of like a Marcus Welby who tells you
it's okay to kill Jesus.
Speaker 3 (44:02):
So he basically does the least amount of work possible
and comes out with the most certain opinion possible.
Speaker 2 (44:08):
Yes, with the most certain opinion, he does, and he's
not again you were There's a whole thing about this,
the Goldwater Rule based on you know, that guy who
was considered a crazy conservative, and so psychiatrist started like
diagnosing him on TV as like you know, paranoid and whatever,
and the discipline. The APA was like, you can't do that.
(44:29):
You never met the man. You can't. You can't just
diagnose a guy from television. And he's not even diagnosing
them from TV. He's like sitting across from a dude
reading a police summary of the crime and going like, oh, yeah,
let me tell you what this guy's got.
Speaker 1 (44:43):
Insane, so insane and getting paid so much money.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
Getting paid a lot of money. By the way, Marcus Welby,
MD was a TV show about a doctor.
Speaker 3 (44:51):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (44:52):
Yeah, James Brolin played one of the characters. So there
you go, James Brolin. So this is like, this is
bad ethics, and this kind of starts initially when he's
doing this, he's using he'll go in and he'll talk,
he will interview the defendant and he'll pretend but he'll
interview them with her false pretenses. He'll interview them under
(45:14):
the pretenses of determining whether or not they're sane. And
then sometimes he'll even be paid to do both. He'll
be paid to determine whether or not they're sane, and
then he will use that same analysis of them in
order to say, oh, yeah, this guy will definitely kill again, right,
which is really ethically questionable. The fact that he's effectively
interviewing people under false pretenses in order to diagnose them.
(45:37):
And what is you know, like, there's a lot that's
going to be like very questionable about this to a
lot of people. But you know, in you know, the
mid seventies, late you know, late sixties, mid seventies, when
kind of he ramps up doing this, there's just not
a lot of eyes on him. Right. In nineteen seventy five,
the National Institute of Mental Health publishes a monograph titled
(45:58):
Mental Health and Law, which is based on extensive research
of psychiatrists who had attempted to predict long term criminal
behavior in their patients, and it found that there was
no reliable criteria for long term predictions like the ones
doctor Grigson had started to make for alacarte payments. But again,
there wasn't really an idea that anyone would do this
for money the way that he was. So he's not
(46:21):
initially drawing a lot of attention for acting as like
a gig worker for the electric chair. You know, he
keeps testifying in case after case throughout the late seventies
and for an idea of how uniquely prolific he is.
By nineteen seventy six, which is two years after the
Texas State Supreme Court ruling, Grigson had testified against more
(46:42):
than twenty five percent of people on death row right,
so he had declared more than a quarter of people
set to be executed by Texas to be in curable
sociopaths who would kill again. Like that's those are the
kind of numbers he's putting up.
Speaker 3 (46:57):
Wow. Well, and because there's no overlapping set of ethics
between the medical profession and the legal profession. Nothing that
he did in the court of law was necessarily illegal, no,
even if it clearly went against basic ethics right in
the medical field.
Speaker 2 (47:15):
Yeah, and that's that's kind of where things because things
are going to come to a head in the Supreme
Court a couple of times over this, over the fact
that everyone in his medical discipline is saying this is bad,
but it's not illegal. Right. So while he is initially
kind of lonely, if not quite singular in doing this
for a living, he people start following him when they
(47:37):
realize how much money there is. There's so many capital
cases in Texas, there's plenty of them for a number
of psychiatrists. And people realize he's spending like a day
a week and getting like fucking sixty grand a year.
Fuck it, you know, hell, like a day a week
for sixty grand is pretty good money today. You know,
like a lot of people would kill for that gick.
(48:00):
So there had been interest. This is not a thing
like I don't want to paint it as like no
one had ever considered prior to Grigson, trying to predict
violent criminal behavior as that study I just quoted from
noted this had been something psychiatrists had considered, but like
the data suggested that like, no, we're really bad at this.
And a number of studies published in the seventies were
(48:20):
analyzed in nineteen eighty one by Professor J. Monahan for
a paper title the Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior. An
amicust brief filed to the US Supreme Court, but the
American Psychiatric Association summarizes, quote, no psychiatric procedures or techniques
had succeeded in reducing the high rate of false positive predictions,
that is, affirmative predictions of future violent behavior that are
(48:41):
subsequently proven erroneous. Professor Monaghan observed that, even allowing for
possible distortions in certain of the research data, it would
be fair to conclude that the best clinical research currently
in existence indicates that psychiatrists and psychologists are accurate and
no more than one out of three predictions of violent
behavior over a several year period. So the APA this
(49:02):
comes up like there's a Supreme Court case in nineteen
eighty one over what Grigson is doing, and it's over
a couple of issues. Number one, the fact that he's
carrying out a lot of these evaluations under false pretenses.
He's taking data for a competency hearing, and he's using
it to determine whether or not someone will kill again,
and just the whole issue with can we even let
psychiatrists predict this sort of thing? And the APA files
(49:24):
a brief saying, our best guess is that the most
accurate we can be is like thirty percent or so, right,
which is not accurate enough for determining whether or not
people should fucking die. And that's like the data that
the Supreme Court's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (49:41):
I mean, it's higher than I thought it would be.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
It's actually much lower than that. Again, this is the
data they have in the in eighty one, right, but
it's low enough to show that, like what he's doing
is an ethical And this is kind of the first
time doctor Grigson blows up and there's there's a little
bit of a media circus around this case and around
doctor Griggson, and this is when he starts being identified
as doctor Death in like a big way. I found
(50:05):
a nineteen eighty one Time article titled they call him
Doctor Death that really does a good job of summarizing
how slap dash a lot of his analyzes are right,
and this is based on reporting about like how he
worked that became a part of the Supreme Court case.
He believes that during an hour of examining a defendants
past and searching for remorse, he can determine the likelihood
of future violence. Some prisoners really get their rocks off
(50:27):
telling you about these horrible crimes, he says. In a
few cases, griggs isn't has offered an opinion without conducting
an interview, relying only on the suspects record. With enough
evidence and arrests, he maintains, you can show where a
person is coming from. About the third of the time
the pre trial interview convinces Griggson there is hope for
the defendant, and he doesn't testify for the prosecution. Dallas
defense attorney Richard Anderson suggests that Gregson fills a psychological
(50:49):
need of jurors when they're making a life or death decision.
They want to believe an individual who would do these
horrible things as a different species from them. He tells
them this person doesn't deserve to live. He makes a
decision easier, right.
Speaker 3 (51:01):
Right, right about turning them into some other category of person,
like we were talking about and he's doing it with
all the rigor of a body language analyst on Fox News.
Speaker 2 (51:11):
That's exactly it, right, But these people don't know should
they just see, Well, he is a doctor, he's a psychiatrist.
He must know he's using he's talking you know well
about it, you know, based on me being a layman
and not knowing that none of these things are like
genuinely things that he can diagnose. So you know, this
(51:31):
is like frustrating, right, And part of what makes this
frustrating is that he's not operating in like a bubble here, right, Like.
The problem isn't thus just you've got this doctor death
psychiatrist telling juries to kill people. The problem is that
most death made inmates are very poor men, right, who
do not have resources to put towards their defense. We
(51:53):
are mostly talking about people represented by public defenders. And
I have friends who are public defenders, who are in
public defense of the hardest jobs in the world. I
have a lot of respect for it. It is also
true that it is very common for people, especially in
Texas in this period of time, for lawyers who are
not qualified, who are not good at their job, to
wind up representing these guys because These are the absolute
(52:15):
shittiest shit cases, right, there's no chance you're going to
win usually, and a lot of these, you know, we'll
talk some about the data, but there's a lot of
bad representation going on here. And there's also just a
lack of resources because prosecutors are much better funded than
public defenders, So prosecutors can pay to bring in doctor Grigson,
(52:36):
whereas a public defender may not be able to bring
in someone of equal gravity. Right, they can't afford a
medical professional, so you wind up when doctor Grigson takes
the stand, he's being cross examined by some guy who
next to him seems like a Yoko Country lawyer questioning
a man of science, right, right, Right.
Speaker 3 (52:56):
Even if they could bring in an expert of their own,
there's the fundamental ethical problem that puts them in the
bind where they're going up against someone who's willing to
cross all these boundaries. Even if they could afford the
best person to oppose them, it's very unlikely, if not
totally uncertain, they would not go out there and say,
this person's never going to do anything about again.
Speaker 2 (53:18):
Right, Yeah, The best case scenario probably if you're hiring
like an ethical you know medical professionals that he says, well,
I can't say for certain one way or the other,
and doctor Death says, I can you know, right right, yeah, exactly.
Speaking of things you can't trust, it's your.
Speaker 3 (53:39):
Introduction of the ad break is what we can't trust.
Speaker 2 (53:42):
Right No, No, I mean it's the only thing you
can trust, you know, abandon your families, worship products, Jesus Christ,
and we're back. Uh yeah, we're back giving out good advice.
Speaker 3 (54:00):
So that was a heart listen.
Speaker 2 (54:03):
Yeah, yeah, they can't be gym. So if they can't
be gyms, speaking of things that can't all be Jim's
defense attorneys that said, there are defense attorneys, and there
are their medical professionals, right who from you know, kind
of the late seventies early eighties start to take issue
with what doctor Death is doing, right, which is kind
of what brings that Supreme Court case I had been
mentioning in nineteen eighty one. Right, So there's one big
(54:26):
case in nineteen eighty one, and kind of the result
of that case is very mixed. Doctor Grison is told,
you can't use competency reviews to determine whether or not
somebody will offend again. You can't just like basically double
dip this this thing, and you can't do it under
false pretenses. If you are going to evaluate someone to
determine whether or not they're incurably criminally insane and will
(54:48):
kill again, you have to tell them that's why you're
talking to them, right. But the Supreme Court also says,
but you also don't need to talk to anyone like
you could just say shit like that part's five. Actually,
So it is this classic Supreme Court really where it's like, oh, good,
I think we're on the right trail. Nope, nope, you
just actually made it worse. You just made it like
(55:10):
much worse. So that's nineteen eighty one, and then the
next major battle in this conflict is going to erupt
again at the US Supreme Court. In two years. There
are two cases involving doctor Grigson at the US Supreme Court.
That's how fucked up a psychiatrist. This is like, that's
a lot crazy. So this this nineteen eighty three case
(55:34):
is Barefoot v Estelle. Now, the underlying case that had
started us earlier before it got to the Supreme Court.
Case is a murder case obviously, and the gist of
that case is that a man with the very unlikely
name of Thomas Barefoot was convicted of murdering a police officer.
So his Texas Jerry has to determine whether or not
he's Barefoot. Yeah, yeah, fucking what a weird name, Thomas Barefoot.
(55:58):
So he goes to he gets convicted, and so after
he's convicted, a juryus to decide do we death penalty
this motherfucker? And obviously it comes down to that future
dangerousness question once again, and two psychiatrists are brought in
to give their opinions, and one of those psychiatrists is
doctor Grigson. By this point in the early eighties, what
had started, you know, Gregson had been not maybe the
(56:18):
only guys starting it, but the major what it's a
cottage industry right now, you know. And both Grigson and
his colleague are kind of in lockstep. Neither of them
talk to Barefoot, neither of them are asked to talk
to Barefoot, and this does not stop them from both
diagnosing him. Doctor Grigson calls him a criminal sociopath. That's
his diagnosis, which is again not a diagnosis. He then says, basically,
(56:44):
I like to rate sociopaths on a scale of one
to ten and then says, I put barefoot above ten.
So he can't even be consistent to the logic of
the made up psychiatry. He's proud. You can't say I
rate this on what one to ten basis, and this
guy is higher than ten. That's not the work.
Speaker 3 (57:01):
It's what he was talking about his fucking guitar amplifier.
Speaker 2 (57:06):
Even, no, it doesn't be consistent with your bullshie. If
you're gonna fake make up your own system of criminal sociopathy,
you can't then say. But also fuck the system I
made up, you know. So I know this is going
to be hard for our listeners in the year twenty
twenty five to accept. But even though that's patently bullshit,
(57:26):
the nineteen eighty three US Supreme Court kind of sucked ass,
and they ultimately upheld the Texas to hear yeah wild,
and they ultimately uphold the Texas State Court's denial of
the delay of execution and wound up creating the precedent
through this that it's totally fine for again, like this
(57:47):
is where we kind of finally decide, yes, absolutely, a
psychiatrist can just show up, never talk to a defendant.
And say, yeah, that guy seems crazy, give me my money,
you know. So there are you know again, this is
like a de controversial thing. There's a brief filed by
the APA and in which they use their most doctorly
language to say, like, what the fuck is wrong with
(58:09):
you people? Quote. Psychiatrists should not be permitted to offer
a prediction concerning the long term future dangerousness of a
defendant and a capital case, at least where the psychiatrist
purports testify as a medical expert possessing predictive expertise. The
large body of research in this area indicates that, even
under the best conditions, psychiatric predictions of long term future
dangerousness are wrong. In at least two out of every
(58:30):
three cases. The forecast of future violent conduct is at
bottom a late determination made on the basis of essentially
actuarial data to which psychiatrists and psychiatrists can bring no
special interpretive skills. The use of psychiatric testimony on this
issue causes serious prejudice that offended by dressing up the
actuarial data with an expert opinion, the psychiatrist's testimony is
(58:51):
likely to receive undue weight. It provides a false aura
of certainty and impermissibly distorts the fact finding process in
capital cases. The APA goes onto our argue that it's
also really fucked up for doctor Grigson to pretend criminal
sociopathy is a diagnosis, because it wasn't, and it shouldn't
be telling jury shit like that, because it's nonsense. Diagnoses
(59:11):
can't be made on the basis of hypothetical questions, period,
and this is the only way to describe prosecutors are
asking Gregson and his colleagues to do. Yet the Supreme
Court rules six' three on the, case And barefoot is
executed a year later at age thirty. Nine the court's
ultimate reasoning is fucking. Stupid they grant THE apa, that, like,
well you're right in your criticisms of this. Guy this
(59:33):
guy's clearly like a kuk and a con, man, right
and you're totally right he shouldn't be doing what he's.
Doing but there's nothing constitutionally impermissible about his. Testimony and
it's fine because of our sacred adversarial trial, process which
means that, obviously if this kouk is saying, bullshit another
expert can be brought in to give countervailing. Opinions which
(59:55):
will leave the jury up to be the, decider you,
know of, truth even though this is a case of
medical professional ethics and which they have no education of standing. Right,
basically it's fine because theoretically another psychiatrist could come in
and say he's, wrong your.
Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
Honor it's my professional medical opinion that the defendant is
a stinky little piss baby and you should probably kill.
Him ye should probably kill, Him and that's my medical.
Opinion and then it's the responsibility of the defendants to
bring in someone who's gonna say what that that guy's?
Insane but that doesn't seem to have happened, Either.
Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
AND i love, That like the jury is supposed to
look at these two professionals with like a dozen years
of schooling each and be, like which one of them
is right based on my experience being a guy who
didn't get out Of jerry, Duty Like i'm not you
should Do jerry?
Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
Duty?
Speaker 2 (01:00:44):
People you?
Speaker 3 (01:00:45):
Should you? Should it's.
Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
Good so there's so much wrong with this. Ruling what's
one of the things that's wildly fucked up is that
the dissent is written By Justice Harry, blackman who is
very pro death. Penalty it normally like a pro death
penalty justice is, like oh my, god what the fuck
is wrong with the rest of you, Quote the court
holds that psychiatric testimony about a defendant's future dangerous is,
(01:01:07):
admissible despite the fact that such testimony is wrong two
times out of. Three the court reaches this result even
in a capital, case because it is said the testimony
is subject to cross examination and impeachment in the present
state of psychiatric. Knowledge this is too much for. Me
one may accept this in a routine lawsuit for money,
damages but when a person's life is at, stake no
matter how heinous his, offense a requirement of greater reliability should.
(01:01:30):
Prevail in a capital, case the speciest testimony of a,
psychiatrist colored in the eyes of an impressionable jury by
the inevitable untouchability of a medical specialist, words equates with death.
Itself pretty. Good it's a pretty good. Descent that's not
a bad.
Speaker 3 (01:01:46):
One and you, KNOW i appreciate that he's willing to
acknowledge all kinds of clowning that goes on in your
standard court of law of nonsense arguments being, yeah, deemed
we can handle. That it's. Fine we'll give it a.
Pass but when it comes, yeah when it comes to killing,
somebody that's. Insane, yeah it's fucking.
Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
Nuts oh, man it reminds. ME i watched with a
friend of mine who's in the public who is a
public defender a while, back the movie And justice For
all with Al, pacino WHICH i have been told is
the best movie about a public defender ever, made and
people should definitely watch. It like there's there's some really
(01:02:26):
good pachino in going on in that, one and he
is like a Peak, pacino Peak, pachino Peak. Pacino look at.
Him he's a little bitty, guys a little baby in this.
Movie oh.
Speaker 3 (01:02:36):
CUTE i love a small Angry italian.
Speaker 2 (01:02:38):
Man, yeah just a tiny Furious italian. Man we don't
have enough of those in our who's our Angriest italian
movie star?
Speaker 3 (01:02:45):
Today oh, NO i think that era is over. Unfortunate,
yeah that's. TRAGIC i can't they all change their? Names you?
Know these days we only have Angry italian, politicians and
none of them are particular really. Good.
Speaker 2 (01:03:00):
Yeah, see we Need hollywood needs More, dei which is
of course Dramatic italian. Inclusion we're working on, that or
working on.
Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
That we did not get the letters correct, There buddy's.
Speaker 2 (01:03:15):
Fine it was close. Enough it was close.
Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
Enough you have a lot of tiny men In hollywood
and none of them happened to be angry Or italian.
Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
Though, yeah it's. Tragic, yeah well, anyway, everybody uh figure that.
Out uh find me an angry Little italian, Man steven't
you got anything to? Plug?
Speaker 3 (01:03:35):
WELL i, MEAN i think you know if you haven't
listened to the Viral texas SERIES i did for a Cool,
zone it could happen. Here please go listen to. THAT
i just wrote something angry FOR msnbc about the awful
Catastrophic texas. Flood, Yeah, jesus and that has a lot
(01:03:56):
of preventable deaths that were totally unnecessary because it's too
expensive to prevent people from dying in places where floods
are common and historically known to kill. People. Yeah so,
yeah check that stuff. Out AND i guess either there's
one QUESTION i neglected to ask OR i don't think
you got, Into. Robert was there anything in common that
(01:04:18):
a lot of these people that doctor death testified. Against
did they have anything in? Common? Like was there a?
THREAD i, mean were They.
Speaker 2 (01:04:27):
There are different races tended to be poor that now
they are not. All in, fact one of his really
like major cases that we'll talk about next episode is
like a he it's a white guy that he gets
on death, row right as the result of like the actual,
murder lying about, it you, know so like. It it's
not entirely but, like, yes his cases match with the
(01:04:50):
general trend In texas death, row which is that black
And hispanic men are.
Speaker 3 (01:04:55):
Overrepresented, right there's a long history of like trumped up
cases involving poor black men In dallas that may or
may not involve death row. Cases, yes he.
Speaker 2 (01:05:04):
Is he is is a standard matter more than a
quarter Of texas death row cases he testifies on during
the several decades that he is involved in. It and
as a, general as a, rule the Evidence i've seen
suggests that it matched the broader demographic. Problems And i'm
Not we're not going to go into a ton of
detail on that just because like the issues with the death,
(01:05:25):
penalty you're broader in. That but, yes like his his
his issues certainly do not escape the overall bias of the,
system like they are part of you, know they sort
of are in line with the overall biases of the.
System fair to, say yeah and yeah overwhelmingly, Though like
the number one thing that these folks have in common
(01:05:47):
is that they are very poor and have very little
access to any kind of legal, resources, right because a
big part of this is that a lot of these
folks are going to be, shown or at least heavily,
suggested to have been innocent after their. Conviction that's what
we're talking about into part, two and a big part
of why that. Happens it's obviously not separate from, race
and neither is, poverty but it's because the whole legal
(01:06:10):
system In texas is set up to make it very
easy to kill poor, people even when it's, known and
it's known by the police and the prosecutor that they've
got the wrong person and they're just kind of doing
it for, numbers, Right, like, well fuck, it no one's
going to stop us from killing this, guy. Right that's
a recurring trend.
Speaker 3 (01:06:28):
Here. Crazy, well on that, note thanks for having me
to talk about such lovely. Topics, Uplifting, yes?
Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
Uplifting feeling?
Speaker 3 (01:06:39):
Good, yeah, Yeah i'm feeling so much.
Speaker 2 (01:06:43):
Better everything's.
Speaker 3 (01:06:45):
FINE i feel less awful. Now, Thanks Thanks, robert.
Speaker 2 (01:06:49):
Thank, you all, right everybody good to. HELL i love.
Speaker 3 (01:06:53):
You we'll be back For part.
Speaker 1 (01:06:54):
Two behind About ustards is a production of Cool Zone.
Media for more from Cool Zone, media visit our Website
coolzonemedia dot com or check us out on The iHeartRadio,
App Apple, podcasts or wherever you get your. Podcasts behind
The bastards is now available on, YouTube new episodes Every
(01:07:15):
wednesday And. Friday subscribe to our channel YouTube dot com
slash At behind The bastards
Behind the Bastards News
Host
Robert Evans
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.