099 Sheet – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Search for:

Reading Time: 4 minutes [566 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

EDWARD D. WORRELL

87

It is easy. If I understand the duties of a first sergeant, he could not be an imbecile, as I have defined it, without it having been found out.

Mr. Wright: Suppose it was uncertain whether the man who appropriated the property had anything to do with the deed, that he fled and acted as no sane man would act, would render himself conspicuous everywhere, proclaimed his name, wore the apparel which would identify him when he had the means of changing, would not flee when pursued, volunteered to tell the property to be that of the man killed, and in all respects acted differently from the sane man who has murdered and who seeks to avoid punishment, would you see in that no cause to suspect insanity?

Dr. Bassett: In your question, you speak of acting as no sane man would act. In such a case, I should think there was insanity. I said in the beginning of my testimony that what in some men was called sanity was in others insanity. That a man’s previous conduct must be known and any sudden or perfect departure from that without adequate cause, motive, object, or intention, would indicate insanity. In continuation of the answer I made, if he was insane ten days before—I mean in connection with my other answer—I don’t say that the hypothesis presented does not furnish evidence of insanity. I want you to take my whole answer together. I could not; there was no insane action in the case.

Dr. G. Y. Bannister: I am a physician in St. Louis; I am a physician to the city hospital; it is not a lunatic asylum, though we have a few lunatics there. All diseases are treated there. I have had an opportunity to see lunatics to a limited extent. I have been in the hospital at Philadelphia for one year, where we had about 100 male patients at one time and about 80 women. I have not seen wild delirium or what you would call crazy, resulting from epilepsy, but I have seen imbecility or idiocy complete from it. Some medical books describe epilepsy as resulting in insanity, but I think they do not state the kind. Long continuance of epileptic fits through many years impairs the mind. In the cases I have seen, there is a gradual loss of memory, and the reason becomes impaired. The mind assumes imbecility. Congenital malformation shows it. The last degree of want of mind produced is idiocy. An idiot is shown by want of expression, dullness in the eye, and retreating forehead. No man can be daily with another who is an idiot and not know it. If he was an imbecile, he would detect it. A man afflicted with imbecility or idiocy, in my opinion, could not hold any office of daily responsibility without it being found out. I have seen imbecility and idiocy produced by epilepsy. As to frequency and time, I have not seen a case where epilepsy produced such a result. I have seen imbecility, but never idiocy except in the case of congenital malformation. In the case I refer to, the attacks were every other day. In occasional attacks, I have known persons who have had epileptic fits from early childhood to the age of 25 years, once a month. They were in possession of sound mind.

---