Salvi's Hearing Transcripts | Murder On Abortion Row | FRONTLINE

Volume: 2CR
Pages: 1-252
Exhibit: 15

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

NORFOLK, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, *
Plaintiff, *
*
VS * Criminal Business
*
JOHN W. SALVI, III * No. 99518 to
Defendant * 99523
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BEFORE: The Honorable Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, J.

PLACE: Norfolk Superior Courthouse
Room 25, Criminal Session
650 High Street
Dedham, Massachusetts 02026

DATE: Wednesday, July 26, 1995

TIME: 9:30 a.m.

__________________________

DANIEL J. JACQUES REPORTING SERVICES
Professional Court Reporter
14 Adin Street
Hopedale, Massachusetts 01747
(508) 473-3041

A P P E A R A N C E S

JOHN P. KIVLAN, Esquire
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
360 Washington Street
Dedham, Massachusetts 02027
FOR: The Commonwealth

MARIANNE C. HINKLE, Esquire
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
360 Washington Street
Dedham, Massachusetts 02027
FOR: The Commonwealth

JOHN H. LaCHANCE, Esquire
14 Vernon Street
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
FOR: Mr. Salvi

J. W. CARNEY, Esquire
CARNEY & BASSIL
20 Park Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
FOR: Mr. Salvi

JANICE BASSIL, Esquire
CARNEY & BASSIL
20 Park Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
FOR: Mr. Salvi

I N D E X

EVENT PAGE

Day 3 Competency Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

________________

WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

Dr. Ronald Schouten (Second Day)
By Mr. LaChance . . . . . . . . . . . 122
By Ms. Hinkle . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 132

Dr. Joel Haycock
By Ms. Hinkle . . . . 138
By Mr. LaChance . . . . . . . 187

________________

E X H I B I T S

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

15 Mr. Salvi's Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . O/R
16 Curriculum Vitae . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
D Identification (Mr. Salvi's Note) . . . . 251

________________

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT OFFICER: Court is now in session, you may be seated.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. KIVLAN: Good morning.
MR. LaCHANCE: Good morning Your Honor.
MS. HINKLE: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Ms. Hinkle (Second Day)
Q Dr. Schouten, you work in the same office with Dr. Kinschereff?
A In the same division, yes. Not physically in the same office.
Q And how long have you worked with Dr. Kinschereff?
A He joined the group in, I believe, in 1992.
Q In 1992?
A That's right.
Q So for the last three years or so?
A Approximately.
Q And in fact, you asked Dr. Kinschereff to become involved in this case?
A Yes I did.
Q And asked him to do some psychological testing, I think he said in February of 1995?
A Yes.
Q And you also interview the defendant with Dr. Kinschereff also in February 1995?
A Yes I did.
Q Later on in the month, on the 23rd I believe it was?
A Correct.
Q Following that interview, you didn't see the defendant again until June of this year?
A That's correct.
Q Dr. Kinschereff wrote a report in April of 1995, or a letter to Mr. Carney and Ms. Bassil, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And did you talk to him before he wrote that letter?
A No, I did not.
Q You didn't talk to him about it?
A Before he wrote it?
Q Yes.
A I didn't talk to him about the specifics of the testing.
Q You didn't talk to him about the specifics of the testing, did you talk to him about the possible, hypothetical diagnosis he was attaching to it?
A When he was writing the report I asked him how it was going, and he said he had some diagnostic possibilities.
Q Well, did he suggest to you that he was going to write a letter suggesting further examination at Bridgewater?
A I don't recall.
Q You don't remember whether he ever said that to you?
A I don't remember. I became aware of it at some point, I don't recall whether he told me that before he wrote the letter or not.
Q Well, you asked him to get involve in the case?
A Yes I did.
Q And is it your testimony that you didn't know that he was going to suggest further examination at Bridgewater?
A I knew at some point, I don't know if -- I can't tell you exactly when I became aware of that.
Q Did you know before the letter went to the attorneys?
A Immediately before, certainly.
Q And did you concur in that suggestion?
A Yes.
Q You thought it was a good idea for Mr. Salvi to go to Bridgewater and be evaluated more thoroughly?
A Yes.
Q And the Bridgewater period is ordinarily a 20 day period of time, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q But it is not at all uncommon that could be a 40 day period, in reality?
A No, there are often extensions.
Q Because it gives, the staff occasionally seeks more time for them to examine a person more fully?
A Correct.
Q And the purpose of that, an inpatient evaluation is, it gives you an opportunity to do things that an outpatient diagnosis doesn't?
A Yes.
Q And it gives you longer periods of observation, other people's collaboration, observation seven days a week, 24 hours a day?
A It provides for additional observation opportunities, yes.
Q And that's a good thing Doctor, isn't when one is evaluating a patient?
A Yes.
Q Again, more information is better than less information in a psychiatric or psychological evaluation?
A More information can often be helpful, yes.
Q Now, you testified, I believe yesterday, that you are a Designated Forensic Examiner?
A It is in my C.V., I don't know that I actually brought that out, but I am a Designated Forensic Psychiatrist.
Q And are you a supervisor as well?
A No, I am not.
Q So that's the next step in this examining in the process that the State has for qualifying people as being able to do forensic examinations, isn't that right?
A For the Department of Mental Health System, yes.
Q And so you haven't gone to that supervisory level?
A No.
Q So you haven't supervised any other people who are doing examinations through that system?
A Not through that system, no.
Q And I believe you said yesterday, you've done 30 competency examinations?
A Approximately.
Q Now, did you have all of the Grand Jury reports from this case, or only certain parts?
A Only certain parts.
Q So you didn't have the total of the, I believe there were 11 or 12 days of Grand Jury testimony, you didn't have all of those?
A No, I did not.
Q If you had them all, Doctor, they would probably be about a foot and a half high, you did not?
A I did not.
Q Did you only get portions, or did you get portions from defense counsel?
A Yes.
Q And those are the only ones you saw were the ones that they sent you?
A That's correct.
Q Did you ever ask for all of them?
A No, I did not.
Q Would it, again Doctor, in the idea that more information is better than less, would it be helpful in doing the evaluation to know all of the testimony of the case?
A Not necessarily.
Q Now, did you talk to Mr. Salvi, or you testified yesterday that you observed some behavior of Mr. Salvi and then formed conclusions based on that?
A Yes.
Q And what you observed Doctor, in this behavior of Mr. Salvi, you observed lapses that Mr. Salvi had, lapses for a period of time?
A That was one of the things I observed, yes.
Q Well you saw him for sometime, five seconds, sometimes thirty seconds, on a couple of occasions longer, lapse, stop?
A Yes.
Q And then either answer a question or ask a different question after that?
A Yes I did.
Q And I believe you testified yesterday that you speculated about what that was?
A Yes.
Q And that's what it was, Doctor, speculation?
A Yes.
Q Now, you talked about Mr. Salvi having a flat affect, but you also testified that you had not reviewed Dr. Resnick's interview which was video taped, is that true?
A I did review Dr. Resnick's tape.
Q Were you able to view it in its entirety?
A Yes, I believe I saw the whole thing.
Q And several times in that tape, Mr. Salvi actually uses humor, doesn't he?
A Well, Mr. Salvi makes comments that are attempts to be humorous.
Q Well, did Dr. Resnick laugh in response to some of Mr. Salvi's comments?
A I believe he may have.
Q Now, you said you had some history about Mr. Salvi, did you know, at the time you were doing your evaluation, that Mr. Salvi graduated from high school?
A Yes.
Q That he in fact attended two fire fighter academies?
A Yes.
Q That he graduated from one of them?
A I was aware of that.
Q That he went to a beauty school in Malden?
A Correct.
Q Graduated from that beauty school?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, in December 1994, that he was attending beauty school classes in New Hampshire?
A I was aware of that.
Q And in fact, he was passing at that school, all of his grades were passing, his examines were passing, his practicals were passing?
A I saw those grades recently and it appeared he was passing most of those.
Q Well he was passing all of those, wasn't he?
A I don't recall if he was passing all of them. I recall some comments that he wasn't performing well in some areas.
Q And did you know that Mr. Salvi was employed?
A Yes.
Q In fact, had been employed at a number of occupations, had been a security guard for a time, had been employed at a couple of beauty salons?
A Yes, I was aware he had very variable work history.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you sir?
THE WITNESS: He had a variable work history shifting from job to job.
Q Well, he was going to school, wasn't he Doctor, during all the time he was in New England?
A I believe that is correct.
Q And in fact, he moved from Malden to New Hampshire which account for one of the job shifts, couldn't it?
A It could.
Q And he also moved from Florida to Massachusetts which could account for one of the job shifts?
A It could.
Q And in December of 1994, Mr. Salvi was working?
A Yes, he was.
Q And did you also know that he had a driver's license, that he had a car?
A Yes.
Q That he had his own apartment?
A Yes.
Q That he paid rent?
A I wasn't aware of his rent payment history.
Q That he had a checking account?
A Yes, I was aware of the checking account.
Q And he didn't have any guardian handling his finances, did he?
A Not that I am aware of.
Q Now, you had enough opportunity to review the Bridgewater record?
A Yes I did.
Q In its entirety?
A Yes.
Q And in that Bridgewater record, Mr. Salvi, on a number of occasions, was in what might be referred to as seclusion?
A Correct.
Q Following some incidents which occurred at Bridgewater?
A Yes.
Q Where a couple of -- on a couple of occasions, he was the victim of an assault?
A That was my impression, yes.
Q And therefore, for everyone's safety and as part of the institutional rules, both parties involved were put into a place where they could be observed and they would be away from the rest of population?
A I don't know the rational behind the seclusion policy there, but yes he was in seclusion.
Q And when one is in seclusion at Bridgewater, one is observed at ten minute intervals, isn't that right?
A Correct.
Q And in fact, notes are made by the staff of what they observe at those ten minute intervals?
A They are monitors who check every ten minutes.
Q Now, in any anything in Bridgewater's report, did you find anything that indicates that Bridgewater observed any hallucinations?
A No specific reference to hallucinations.
Q In fact, Dr. Haycock's conclusion are that no hallucinations were observed by anyone at Bridgewater over the entire time Mr. Salvi was there, is that right?
A I believe his wording was no evidence of gross hallucinations.
Q Well, didn't Dr. Haycock write that no one observed any hallucinations?
A I don't recall specifically his wording.
Q Bridgewater after sixty days of evaluation found there was no evidence of psychosis in Mr. Salvi?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer that.
A Bridgewater, my understanding from the Bridgewater report was that, and recollection is that, they said there was no evidence of a psychotic disorder.
Q No evidence of a psychotic disorder?
A Correct, but there was reference to odd thinking, paranoia thoughts.
Q But there was no evidence of any psychotic disorder?
A That's what I recall, yes.
Q And they found that Mr. Salvi had not suffered from schizophrenia?
A Correct.
Q That was the final conclusion from Dr. Haycock, that he did suffer from schizophrenia?
A I don't recall that specifically.
Q Well, do you remember reading the Bridgewater report then?
A Yes I do.
MS. HINKLE: May I have a moment Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LaCHANCE: Judge, before we go back to this, may we have a side bar?
THE COURT: Yes.

SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

THE COURT: Yes Mr. LaChance?
MR. LaCHANCE: Judge, I object to this whole line of questioning. She's asking him to testify about what's in the Bridgewater records. She has not asked him whether he agrees or disagrees, there is no purpose for doing that --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LaCHANCE: -- that is relevant.
Your Honor, could I have a continuing objection to that line, so that I don't have to keep getting up?
THE COURT: Well yes, if that's the basis.
MR. LaCHANCE: That's the basis.
THE COURT: Yes.

END SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

Q Doctor, do you remember reading in the Bridgewater report about a couple of these incidents that Mr. Salvi was involved in at Bridgewater where he was the victim of an apparent assault?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Salvi gave Dr. Haycock a very detailed descriptions of what had occurred in the Bridgewater record?
A Yes he did.
Q In fact, Dr. Haycock says that at some length in his reports?
A Yes he does.
Q And Dr. Haycock even opines at some point that he knew the other person involved from his own professional relationship and that Mr. Salvi's description of the other person's behavior was consistent with what Dr. Haycock knew of the other person?
A Yes he did.
Q And Dr. Haycock asked Mr. Salvi at some point, which is recounted in the report, whether Mr. Salvi thought that that man was just aimed at harming him, that is Mr. Salvi, do you recall him suggesting that?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Haycock asked Mr. Salvi that, didn't he?
A I believe he did.
Q And Mr. Salvi response was, "No, I don't think he's just after me, actually it is a problem for a lot of people and he bothers a lot of people because he lays on the table so we can't play cards?"
A Correct.
Q So Mr. Salvi didn't say about this person who had apparently attacked him twice, he is out to get me, or anything like that?
A No.
Q In fact, he said statements which are sort of the opposite of paranoia about that person, didn't he?
A Opposite of paranoia about that person, yes.
Q In fact, someone -- it would be more consistent with paranoid thinking to say when somebody had attacked you twice, I think he has a vendetta just against me, he's out to get me?
A Not necessarily.
Q Well, it's not paranoid at all to say about someone who has attacked you twice, actually, he's really a problem to everybody, it is because he does this disruptive behavior?
A Correct.
Q Doctor, if I could show you something.
MS. HINKLE: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. HINKLE: If I could show you Page 6 of the May 26th Bridgewater report Doctor, if you could just examine the part that begins right here, to the end of that paragraph.
(Brief Pause)
Q Does that refresh your recollection Doctor?
A Yes it does.
Q And Bridgewater found that based on all of the available data, Mr. Salvi would not meet the D.S.M. IV diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia?
A That's what it says in the report.
Q Well, that's what Dr. Haycock wrote?
A Yes.
Q Have you had an opportunity to read Dr. Haycock's notes?
A (No Verbal Response)
Q As opposed to, there's his report, and there is a Bridgewater record, and then Dr. Haycock's notes were provided to counsel at some point, did you have a chance to read them?
A I don't believe I saw Dr. Haycock's hand written notes, no.
Q So you don't know whether Mr. Salvi told Dr. Haycock about the issue of what he would say if a witness lied for example, that he --
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: I didn't hear her, repeat the question.
Q Do you know whether Mr. Salvi told Dr. Haycock in response to the question about whether he would tell his attorneys if a witness lied for example, that yes he would tell them, either at that time, or later depending on what his attorneys suggested?
A I don't know.
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q Now, you testified Doctor, that in your opinion Mr. Salvi lacks insight, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And insight is the ability to understand the impact that one's behavior has on others, as well as some things about one's behavior itself?
A No. If I may, insight, the first thing you described, lack of ability to access the impact of one's behavior on others, what we refer to as empathy.
Lack of insight into one's behavior really refers to an inability to appreciate the motivation and one's thinking processes, and awareness of problems with that thinking.
Q Now you testified, I believe yesterday that one of Mr. Salvi's, what you call inabilities, is an inability to take in new information?
A In part, yes.
Q And staying on just one thought, and not being able to get off of that thought?
A Correct.
Q And that's one of the things that you found significant?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you also read Doctor, that at Bridgewater, that Mr. Salvi primarily had not wished to be found not competent to stand trial and go to Bridgewater?
A Will you ask that again, please?
Q That Mr. Salvi primarily had expressed, through the Bridgewater stay, an interest in not being found incompetent and remaining at Bridgewater?
A Correct.
Q But did you read in Dr. Haycock's report that near the end of his second period of observation, Mr. Salvi began to not be so upset at the idea of being found incompetent, and in fact, asked Dr. Haycock what happens to people who are found incompetent and started taking notes about that?
A Yes, I read that.
Q And that in fact, Mr. Salvi was asking questions that elicited responses like, or said things like, well, sometimes people are at Bridgewater for five to thirty years, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And Mr. Salvi even asked Dr. Haycock, well, if I get convicted and I go to a prison facility, how would I arrange to get back to Bridgewater, do you recall reading that?
A Yes I do.
Q Now Doctor, you testified I believe yesterday that what one of the things that you felt distinguished or took Mr. Salvi out of the personality disorder category, was the fact that he has hallucinations, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And that was significant to you?
A It was.
Q In your view, extremely significant?
A Yes.
Q In fact, one of the most significant things, I believe you testified, was the presence of past hallucinations?
A It's part of the overall pattern, I wouldn't single it out as the most important thing.
Q Well, but that's what you said yesterday was the major thing that distinguished Mr. Salvi's personality disorder?
A That and the presence of the prominent delusions.
MS. HINKLE: Excuse me?
THE COURT: Presence of what, sir?
THE WITNESS: Prominent delusions.
Q Now Doctor, the hallucinations, that I believe you testified about, that you said Mr. Salvi experienced, one was in 1992, with the big black bird?
A Correct.
Q And that came from Mr. Salvi's parents, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Salvi denied any recollection of that occurring, or telling his parents about it?
A That's right.
Q And the second hallucination you testified about was in 1993, something about a feeling of evil in the apartment?
A Yes.
Q And that also came from Mr. and Mrs. Salvi, his parents?
A Yes.
Q You didn't get that from anyone else, did you, the evil in the apartment?
A No.
Q Or the big black bird?
A No.
Q And Mr. Salvi denied ever remember that event or having any hallucinations at that time?
A Actually in one of the subsequent interviews, he made reference to perhaps that that may have happened.
Q That he may have felt evil in the apartment?
A He conceded that both the event with the bird and with the feeling evil in the apartment, may have happened.
Q Well, Doctor, what he said to you was, I can't deny it, but I don't remember it, I don't recall it, isn't that right?
A Correct.
Q So he didn't exactly concede that it may have happened, he said I can't deny it, but I don't remember it?
A Correct.
Q And you testified there was one hallucination in 1994?
A Yes.
Q And one hallucination in 1995?
A I don't recall 1995.
Q So then we have three hallucinations, one in 1992, one in 1993, and one in 1994?
A Correct.
Q And you didn't elicit from anyone else any other hallucinations?
A No.
Q Or any testimony that Mr. Salvi had ever experienced any other hallucinations beside those, two of which came from his mother and father?
A Well no, that's not accurate. There was an interview with a Cindy Lockshire, in which she described Mr. Salvi, and I don't recall exactly the date of these events, but in which she described Mr. Salvi telling her about hearing voices, hearing people talking, having --
Q Wasn't that the third one, Doctor, that we are talking about, isn't it the big bird, the evil in the apartment, and Ms. Lockshire's report
A It may be. I'm not sure of the date.
Q Well, is there any other hallucinations you can recall?
A Not that I am aware of.
Q So the ones you remember, and you thought this was significant, were the big black bird, the evil in the apartment, both of which came from his parents, and one interview with a woman who said that he told her that sometimes he heard voices, one on one shoulder, one on the other, one was good, one was bad?
A That and the spirits, yes.
Q And the spirits?
A And the spirits.
THE COURT: Is this part of the same report?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q So those are the three hallucinations that we are talking about?
A Yes.
Q And Bridgewater didn't note anything in the sixty days they saw Mr. Salvi about a big black bird, or evil in the apartment, or spirits, one that is good, one that is evil, did they?
A No.
Q Doctor, in your interview with Mr. Salvi at one point, you said that he changed the subject which you attributed to his inability to focus on his defenses, when you had your interview with Ms. Bassil?
A Correct.
Q Is that right?
A Correct.
Q Well, what actually occurred Doctor, not you interpretation, but what actually occurred was that Ms. Basil was asking the defendant a series of questions and instead of answering them, he switched subjects, he started talking about his truck, didn't he?
A I don't, that's not really a fair characterization of what happened.
Q Well, he was being asked questions, that he didn't answer, is that right?
A Or was answering tangentially or obliquely.
Q Well, what you opine was tangentially or obliquely, he was not giving direct answers to the questions that Ms. Bassil was asking?
A Correct.
Q And then he started talking about his truck and asked her questions about his truck?
A He actually started talking about Mr. Carney.
Q That Mr. Carney hadn't done something that Mr. Salvi desired done to his truck?
A That's right.
Q And asking Ms. Bassil if she could find out about that?
A Yes.
Q And the questions he was asking about his truck, that was a coherent request?
A Certainly the phrasing was coherent.
Q Well, he wanted to know what was happening with his truck and whether it had either gone back to his parents or where it was, wasn't the inquiry he was making?
A Those were the questions that he asked, yes.
Q Now, one of the issues, I believe you testified yesterday, that formed your opinion Doctor, is that Mr. Salvi continues to make statements that he wishes to raise a defense of silence, is that right?
A In part, yes.
Q And that's one of the factors that you put in your analysis that he is incompetent, that he continues to maintain that?
A Yes.
Q And you attempted to talk Mr. Salvi out of that?
A No, I did not.
Q Well you attempted to -- you and other people who have talked to him, have attempted to talk him out of it?
A No.
Q Well, haven't you suggested to him that that's not in all likelihood a successful defense?
A I have -- what I suggested to him or raised with him was that his attorneys had advised him that it was not likely to be a successful strategy.
Q And in fact, on some occasions Mr. Salvi's been threatened about that defense, in a sense of you can't do it, you can't say that?
A I wouldn't categorize it as being threatening.
Q Well, have you seen, even on Dr. Resnick's tape, Mr. Salvi being told that that's not a good thing, you can't raise that defense?
A I recall him being told that it is not a good thing to do or not a wise thing to do.
Q But in fact Doctor, isn't it relevant that the phrase, `defense of silence', is in fact something that's been used before?
A I've heard it referred to, yes.
Q Well in fact, that another individual who shot providers at a clinic, which among services, provides abortion, Paul Hill in Florida used the defense of silence?
A Yes.
Q Are you aware of that?
A Yes.
Q So Mr. Salvi is not the first person having shot providers at Women's Health Clinics to wish to raise the defense of silence?
A He's not the first person who has used those words, no.
Q Well, Paul Hill in fact, used the defense of silence, didn't he Doctor?
A I'm not aware of the details of that.
Q Well, are you familiar with that trial at all?
A Just from what I have read briefly in the papers.
Q Well do you know that Mr. Hill didn't ask any questions of any witnesses through his entire trial, and represented himself?
A That was my impression, yes.
Q So that in fact, he didn't just the use the words of defense of silence, he in fact did that?
A Correct.
Q Now, you also talked about one of things that formed your decision Doctor, was Mr. Salvi's rigidity in his views?
A Rigidity in his thinking.
Q Rigidity in his thinking. Which is the only way you know that is by the words he says, is that right?
A Correct.
Q Because you don't know actually what is in his mind, you just know what he talks about?
A That's right.
Q And in fact, you had an opportunity to observe Dr. Resnick's interview on the video tape, you said?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when asked about these beliefs of his, doesn't Mr. Salvi in fact say, I believe what the Pope believes?
A Yes.
Q That if you are asking about specifics beliefs of his, if the Pope believes it, he believes it, as a practicing catholic?
A That's what he says.
Q And in fact, at some point, Dr. Resnick was talking to him about the Free Masons which is a part of Mr. Salvi's beliefs, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And doesn't Mr. Salvi say, "Well not all Free Masons are bad, they are not all involved in this activity?"
A At times he says that, yes.
Q In fact, he suggests that there are some Free Masons who are involved in this activity to harm catholics, and others who aren't at all?
A Correct.
Q And in fact, at some point Mr. Salvi, at several points, Mr. Salvi is asked questions by Dr. Resnick about this catholic persecution, and doesn't Mr. Salvi say to Dr. Resnick, "Well, it's not really persecution I am talking about, it is the failure to provide assistance to the catholics?"
A Yes, I've heard him say that.
Q And in fact, Dr. Resnick asked Mr. Salvi a question with some numbers, like if all catholics are being laid off, and Mr. Salvi in fact, went through some detail, that no, not all, that some would be, some percentage might be, and others wouldn't be, is that right?
A I believe so.
Q Do you remember Mr. Salvi saying things like if there were 25 catholics, 15 of them might be laid off?
A I don't remember the numbers, no.
Q During Dr. Resnick's interview and in fact some of your interviews, Doctor, Mr. Salvi raised issues to you of things he disagreed with, didn't he?
A Disagreed with?
Q Things he didn't agree with whatever was being said at the time?
A Yes.
Q In fact, to Dr. Resnick, Mr. Salvi a couple of times, corrected Dr. Resnick, didn't he?
A I believe he did, yes.
Q Well for example, Dr. Resnick said, "I work for your defense attorneys," didn't Mr. Salvi say, "No, you work for me?"
A Yes he did.
Q Do you recall that, on a number of occasions?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Salvi was quite clear in fact, about who Dr. Resnick was, and was hired by, and was paid by, and for whom, in reality, Dr. Resnick worked, which is Mr. Salvi?
A It's a matter of interpretation.
Q Well, he was very clear to Dr. Resnick about that, wasn't he?
A He was clear in his opinion, yes.
Q In fact, sometimes Mr. Salvi attempted to control the interview with Dr. Resnick?
A Yes he did.
Q And on some occasions, Mr. Salvi attempted to control the interview with you and Dr. Kinschereff?
A Yes he did.
Q Mr. Salvi apparently doesn't agree with some suggestions about an appropriate legal strategy, is that fair to say Doctor?
A Yes.
Q Now Mr. Salvi told you, I believe you, I don't think this came up yesterday actually, but you had a conversation with Mr. Salvi, I believe Dr. Kinschereff was also there, where Mr. Salvi talked about his prior experience at these women's clinics?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, went on at some length about his prior activities there, that he knew a lot of the protesters there?
A Yes he did.
Q He told you that?
A Yes.
Q And he told you that he had been there on a number of occasions handing out literature?
A Yes.
Q And he told you that sometimes passers by would spit at them, at them, that is the, what they were -- what people referred to as the prolife activists, would be yelled at, or spit at occasionally by passers by?
A Yes.
Q He told you that?
A He did.
Q But that he persisted in going and he would go and hand out this literature?
A Yes.
Q And he told you in some detail about the experiences he had at the very clinics where these women were shot, isn't that right?
A He told us in limited detail, but he told us some things that happened, yes.
Q Well, he told you that he had been to those very clinics in the past?
A Yes.
Q And that he had been outside on the street handing out literature?
A Correct.
Q And then different events had occurred to him, that passers by would make comments or do different things?
A Yes.
Q And those events, by definition Doctor, had to occur prior to Mr. Salvi's arrest on December 31, 1994?
A Yes.
Q Because you know that he was incarcerated from that time up until the time of your interview?
A Correct.
Q In fact, didn't Mr. Salvi tell you that he was almost assaulted by someone once, almost physically assaulted?
A He made a reference to physical touching of some sort, yes.
Q While he was handing out these pamphlets and information?
A I believe so.
Q Now Doctor, you also testified about the death penalty, Mr. Salvi has indicated on a number of occasions, that he may wish the death penalty?
A Yes.
Q And I believe you said that that's one of the things also that formed your opinion about Mr. Salvi's mental state?
A In part.
Q Now Doctor, have you had experience with individuals facing the rest of their life in prison in the past?
A Yes.
Q Have you talked with those individuals on a numbers of occasions?
A Yes I have.
Q Have you ever talked to individuals facing that possibility who had never been incarcerated before?
A Yes.
Q It's not an unusual belief for people to say, or not an unusual thing to say, I would rather be dead then spend the rest of my life in prison, isn't it?
A I haven't heard it.
Q You have never heard that before?
A No.
Q How many people have you talked to facing that situation, with the rest of their life in prison who have never been incarcerated before, sir?
A About five.
Q And none of those five people have ever made those statements?
A Correct.
Q Well Mr. Salvi told Dr. Resnick that if his choice was life in prison verses the death penalty, he would choose the death penalty, didn't he?
A Yes.
Q And he also told Dr. Resnick, if his choice was the death penalty or ten years in prison, that he would choose the ten years?
A Yes.
Q He also told Dr. Haycock that he thought the death penalty was a sane solution to an insane environment, the insane environment being prison, isn't that right?
A Yes he did.
Q And that he would rather die then spend the rest of his entire life in what he called an insane environment, that being prison?
A There were words to that effect in the report, yes.
Q Now Dr. Haycock in his report, Dr. Schouten, wrote a section called data, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And he goes on at some length, in fact that's a very long report, isn't it?
A It's a very long report.
Q Fifty pages or so in the first report, and maybe another ten in the second?
A Yes.
Q And there are standards in fact, that the Department of Mental Health puts out for how reports, forensic reports, should be written, aren't there?
A Yes.
Q And they in fact go to some length to talk about how one should set out the data in as complete terms as possible and then only when the data is
complete, one should begin to make some conclusions?
A Correct.
Q And Dr. Haycock's report does that in fact, doesn't it?
A The report does, yes.
Q Dr. Haycock's report in fact, very closely tracts exactly what the Department of Mental Health suggest should be done when one is writing a forensic report?
A It fits the overall form of those recommendations.
Q Well, Dr. Haycock goes to some length to set out the specifics facts and data which support his conclusions, doesn't he?
A He does.
Q Doctor, have you had an opportunity to review some of Mr. Salvi's writings, I think you said?
A Yes I have.
Q And did you read an item that was, a writing that was found in his apartment on, I think it was December 30th, or the 31st, by the police, something he already apparently written?
A I did, I'm not sure which of those documents it is out of the group.
Q Well, do you recall a document that had something to do with the theme of catholics and people needing the additional money in order to manage?
A That is all of his writings, so it is hard for me to distinguish.
Q Well, you remember reading --
THE COURT: I didn't hear your last answer.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, it is all of his writings relate to that, so it hard for me to distinguish which document was found in his apartment.
Q Do you remember -- I'm sorry, were you finished?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember reading a writing that contained those themes that was taken out of Mr. Salvi's apartment at the time of his arrest?
A Yes.
Q So that Mr. Salvi appears to have had those beliefs, that is about catholics, and about the need for some financial assistant for different people prior to the time of his arrest?
A Yes.
Q So during the time, at least prior to his arrest, these beliefs are not new in a sense for Mr. Salvi, they are beliefs that he appears to have had back in December?
A That's correct.
Q At least some of them?
A Yes.
Q Now Doctor, in the Bridgewater record, did you find notations, or in the report actually, by Dr. Haycock, that Mr. Salvi understood the Fifth Amendment?
A There was discussion on the Fifth Amendment, yes.
Q Well there was significant discussion on the Fifth Amendment, wasn't there?
A Yes.
Q In fact, Mr. Salvi frequently raised the Fifth Amendment in a variety of contexts?
A Yes he did.
Q And Dr. Haycock had explained to Mr. Salvi that he certainly continued to hold all of his rights during the Bridgewater evaluation, during any interview that he agreed to cooperate in?
A That's correct.
Q And Mr. Salvi in fact, on a number of occasions, declined to answer questions, citing his Fifth Amendment rights?
A Yes he did.
Q And Dr. Haycock also notes that Mr. Salvi was familiar with the difference between guilty and not guilty pleas, and in fact knew what plea had been entered for him?
A Yes.
Q And that in fact Mr. Salvi understood why someone might plead not guilty by reason of insanity, although he didn't want to do that?
A Yes.
Q And also that he understood that he had, or that he desired to raise the defense of silence, but Mr. Salvi understood that it was the prosecutor's job to convict him, put the evidence forward?
A Yes, he understood that.
Q And Mr. Salvi asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in the interview with Dr. Resnick as well, didn't he on a number of occasions?
A Yes he did.
Q And actually knew that he had the ability to represent himself if he choose to do that?
A That he had the right to represent himself, yes.
Q The right to represent himself, exactly.
And Mr. Salvi also told both Dr. Resnick and Dr. Haycock that he thought his defense was weak and that he had no alibi?
A Not aware of that.
Q Well, have you had an opportunity to see Dr. Resnick's notes?
A I haven't seen Dr. Resnick's notes, no.
MS. HINKLE: An item that was marked B for Identification.
Q Do you also in terms of relating to Mr. Salvi's attorneys, did you find that Bridgewater indicated that Mr. Salvi was able to follow what was apparently his attorney's advice?
A In some circumstances, yes.
Q That for example, on the protesting the conditions under which the interviews were done, that Mr. Salvi was providing a letter to Dr. Haycock saying that he was not objecting to agreeing to the interview, but that he was doing so under protest?
A Correct.
Q And in fact, he discussed that with Dr. Haycock at the beginning of each interview?
A He did.
Q And that appears to have been advice from his attorneys, or at least certainly done, according to Mr. Salvi's statements, with the suggestion and agreement with the attorneys?
A That's what he said, yes.
Q And in fact, Mr. Salvi noted on a number of occasions that he felt his attorneys had done a good job for him and he liked them?
A Yes.
MR. LaCHANCE: Your Honor, I am going to object again, this is not proper cross-examination with respect to this witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q And in fact, in the Bridgewater report, isn't it noted that Mr. Salvi indicated that he would consult with his attorneys before even discussing the possibility of any plea bargain?
A I don't recall specifically.
Q Do you recall Mr. Salvi saying to Dr. Resnick at some point, I have a lot of faith in Mr. Carney and Ms. Bassil?
A Yes.
Q And that he wanted to talk to his attorneys before testifying or being cross-examined, before making any of those judgments, he wanted to speak to his attorneys?
A Yes.
Q And he also told Dr. Resnick that he was attempting to be very cooperative, he thought he was cooperative when he was speaking to Dr. Resnick?
A He thought he was, yes.
Q Bridgewater also made note of the fact, Dr. Haycock made note of the fact that the defendant understood what plea bargaining was, that it resulted in a person pleading guilty to a reduced charge and that the defendant was the one who actually made that decision?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, that the decision as to whether to plead guilty by reason -- not guilty by reason of insanity rested with the defendant?
A Correct.
Q And Mr. Salvi expressed all those views to Dr. Haycock as set out in Dr. Haycock's report?
A Yes he did.
Q Now did you also note in the Bridgewater record that Mr. Salvi appeared to be able to understand the role of his attorneys?
A He had an understanding of the role of the attorneys, yes.
Q And an understanding of the role of the prosecutors?
A Yes.
Q And an understanding of the role of the Judge?
A Yes.
Q And an understanding of the role of the jury?
A Yes.
Q And an understanding of what witnesses, who the witnesses might be and what they would do?
A Yes he did.
Q Did you also see in the Bridgewater report that Mr. Salvi had an understanding of the purpose of the trial, that is, to be found either guilty or not guilty?
A In the Bridgewater report?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And that he also in the Bridgewater report, Dr. Haycock actually asked Mr. Salvi who would be present in the courtroom, and in addition to the sort of conventional participants that Mr. Salvi described, he also said media, journalist, cameras, and film makers, isn't that right?
A I believe so.
Q It was also noted in the Bridgewater report that Mr. Salvi understood the purposes of an oath, what perjury was, and again, what the Fifth Amendment was?
A Yes.
Q And to Dr. Resnick, didn't Mr. Salvi say he understood that at some point the trial date would be set once all the attorneys conference?
A Yes.
Q Now Mr. Salvi was able to tell you that he understood what the charges were against him?
A Eventually, yes.
Q Two counts of murder, five counts of assault?
A Correct.
Q That's also set out in the Bridgewater report that Mr. Salvi related that to Dr. Haycock at some point?
A That's right.
Q He told him the things he is charged with?
A Yes.
Q And that he understood what the -- that the timing of these events was apparently around Christmas?
A I'm sorry?
Q That Mr. Salvi indicated when asked when did these events allegedly occur, he said they were reported to have occurred sometime around Christmas?
A I don't recall him saying that.
Q Now, did you also see the Bridgewater report that Mr. Salvi set out in some detail what the potential penalties were for these charges?
A Yes.
Q That he in fact, described that murder was twenty-five years to the rest of your life, with no possibility of parole?
A Yes.
Q And that in fact, there was a thing called second degree murder which was fifteen to twenty, or twenty-five years, but the difference was that the second degree murder you can get parole?
A Correct.
Q And Mr. Salvi told all of this to Bridgewater?
A Yes he did.
Q And that there was also a thing called manslaughter which he understood was somewhere between five and fifteen years, and you got parole after five years?
A Yes.
Q Now, you are a lawyer as well as a physician sir, is that right?
A Correct.
Q Now Mr. Salvi may be a little bit off on the numbers, but in terms of the scope of those charges, in fact, Mr. Salvi is right, first degree murder, no parole, second degree murder allows for parole after some time, and manslaughter is a lesser charge, isn't that right?
A That's my understanding, yes.
Q Did you also see in the Bridgewater report that Mr. Salvi understood that the death penalty was not an option in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but was available on the Federal level where he also at one point had some charges?
A Yes.
Q And that Mr. Salvi would prefer, as we discussed, to a life in prison that he get the death penalty?
A That was his statement, yes.
Q What was the -- did Mr. Salvi tell Dr. Resnick that he cold not predict the likely outcome of what would occur in the case at that point because he hadn't seen the evidence yet?
A Correct.
Q Did you also see Dr. Haycock noted in his report that Mr. Salvi, in great detail, explained that to him, what is known as the Lamb warning, that is, the warnings one gives about confidentiality in the Bridgewater interview, at each time they had an interview?
A Yes he did.
Q Without Dr. Haycock having to tell him again about them, at each interview?
A He was quite close, yes.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you sir?
THE WITNESS: Yes, he was quite close to giving those facts.
Q In fact, he described them almost exactly the way they -- a professional such as yourself, might tell a subject about them?
A Yes he did.
Q Now you also noted Doctor, in the Bridgewater report, that not only did Mr. Salvi describe narratives of two or three events that he had been involved in great detail with Dr. Haycock, those are those assaults and some other events he was involved in?
A Yes.
Q But he also described at some length his relationship with the canteen, isn't that right?
A Yes he did.
Q And the canteen is a place where a person incarcerated can go to get food of his choice with money of his own, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And Mr. Salvi was putting in orders at the canteen and he was getting some items and wasn't getting others?
A Yes.
Q And he set that out at some length to Dr. Haycock?
A Yes he did.
Q He also set out his opinions for how the food in Bridgewater might be changed to better meet the nutritional requirements of inmates?
A Yes.
Q Now, also regarding one of these assault that occurred, didn't Mr. Salvi tell Dr. Haycock that he knew that the IPS Unit, that is the investigative arm of Department of Corrections, had investigated one of the times that he was apparently or reportedly assaulted by another inmate?
A Yes.
Q And that he knew that the IPS Unit would have done a report, that is Mr. Salvi, and that he would like to get a copy of that?
A I believe so.
Q And that he also knew that he had a potential right to take out charges against that person?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Resnick in fact, commented, I believe, during their interview in the video tape, that Mr. Salvi was very good, I don't know if he used those terms, but he was very good at protecting himself, when he didn't choose to answer questions, isn't that right?
A I don't recall that specifically.
Q Well, do you remember Dr. Resnick saying something like you are very good at protecting yourself when you are asked a question that you don't want to answer?
A I remember some commentary to that effect.
Q Dr. Haycock found in reviewing all of that information that Mr. Salvi possessed all of the abilities necessary to be competent to stand trial, isn't that right?
A I believe that was his conclusion.
Q But Dr. Haycock noted that the narratives Mr. Salvi provided, about all these events that he was involved in at Bridgewater, not only appeared to be coherent within and of themselves, which they appeared to be, isn't that what Dr. Haycock said?
A Yes.
Q But that they were done in clear and non-digressive language, that they proceeded directly and they were clear reports?
A That's right.
Q You testified that one of the other things that formed your opinions about Mr. Salvi's mental status is your opinion that he has a number of delusions, is that right?
A That's right.
Q And you found that to be very significant?
A I did.
Q Now Doctor, if we could break these down the way you testified about them, I believe yesterday, one of these sets of believes that you call delusions is that catholics are facing layoffs and are not being provided assistance which they, which Mr. Salvi believes they should be, and that they should band together to develop their own welfare system, is that right?
A That's several of them, but yes.
Q Well, that's sort of one group of Mr. Salvi's beliefs, isn't it?
A It's one general category, yes.
Q It is a part of that, that the catholics might be well advised to have a system established to print money so that they could fund this welfare system?
A Yes.
Q And I believe you also testified that one of what you believe is Mr. Salvi's delusion is has to do with the sterility of young catholic males and spermicide?
A Yes.
Q What did Mr. Salvi tell you about that?
A He did not tell me, this was in his written material I believe, that --
Q Sorry I can't hear you.
A I believe it was in the written material in which he raised the issue of why are so many -- why are so many catholic men sterile, it's because they are having a spermicide injected into their scrotum at birth.
Q And did you ask Mr. Salvi about that?
A No.
Q Doctor, you testified yesterday that you thought that was very significant?
A Yes I did.
Q You never, and you had four interviews with Mr. Salvi?
A Yes.
Q Never once did you raise that question with Mr. Salvi?
A I don't believe I raised that one specifically.
Q So you never heard about that at all from Mr. Salvi?
A Not specifically, no.
Q Now, was there anything in this -- well you didn't talk about it, so you don't -- well, that's all you know is what you read in this document?
A Correct.
Q And the document that you read that in Doctor, was that a letter that Mr. Salvi or a writing of Mr. Salvi's that says on the front, "Dearest Editor, Chief of Staff and Journalist?"
A It may be. I would have to see it.
MS. HINKLE: Your Honor May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q This is the page Doctor, if you could just look at that.
A Right.
(Brief Pause)
Q That's the document where you got that from, Doctor?
A Yes.
Q And did you see this anywhere else?
A I don't believe so.
Q Now this document, on the first page, it has been admitted as Exhibit 5, Your Honor.
On the first page it says, "When statement is printed, I would much appreciate a copy or copies of the statement in printed newspaper to be sent the following addresses," and then lists some addresses?
A Yes.
Q To Mr. Carney, to Ms. Bassil, Mr. Hubbard, his attorney down in Virginia, and Mr. Salvi?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, on the page where Mr. Salvi is writing about the thing that you just described, a couple of sentences before that, in fact Doctor, relate to that thought don't they?
A Yes.
Q In fact, what Mr. Salvi is writing about is that while the catholic leaders were deliberating in Cairo over population control, the catholic people were acquiring breast cancer from birth control pills. is that right?
A Yes.
Q That's the sentence before, "That while the leaders of the church were worried about birth control, in fact, catholic women were taking birth control pills which inferentially is what they should be worried about?"
A Yes.
Q Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And then he goes on to say, "Quite a few of our catholic young men are sterile due to an injection of spermicide in their scrotums at birth," is that right?
A Yes.
Q And that's the only place you see this?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Salvi doesn't say that had occurred to him in his writing, does he?
A No.
Q Or that all catholic young men are now sterile?
A No.
Q But that quite a few people, in his opinion, are sterile because of this injection?
A That's what he says.
Q Now Mr. Salvi didn't -- did Mr. Salvi ever suggest in that writing that Mr. Carney or Ms. Bassil has at all been involved in this spermicide activity?
A No, he did not.
Q He never suggested anything like that, did he?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Did he ever suggest that Mr. Carney or Ms. Bassil were involved in this catholic lack of providing assistance to catholics?
A No.
Q Or that the Judge was involved in any of those activities?
A No, he has not mentioned that to me.
Q Or that Mr. Kivlan or myself are involved?
A No, he has not.
Q Or that anybody in the court had anything to do with this catholic layoff concern that he has?
A I would have to say that's not a fair characterization.
Q Well, did Mr. Salvi ever tell you that the Judge, or the prosecutors, or the defense lawyers had anything to do with this catholic layoff concerns of his?
A Not the layoff, but he has made reference to the judicial system being biased against certain individuals. When he got into the topic of some people get sentenced to natural life and some people don't, and I asked him can he explain to me who gets that sentence and who doesn't, he would not give me that answer, he closed down and said that I don't want to talk about it.
Q And he never told you that anything having to do with the judicial had a part of this catholic layoff plan?
A Not the catholic layoff plan, no.
Q Now, you also added that as part of what you believe is his delusional theories, that he suggested that the church might want to print money to make more money available to fund this welfare system, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Mr. Salvi never told you that he thinks that is occurring right now, did he?
A That the Catholic Church is printing money?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q Or that he thinks that people have been let out of prison and are over in the Vatican printing out this money, he never told you that?
A No.
Q He suggested that it might be a good idea, as a way to get money to fund this welfare system?
A That's correct.
Q Now, what did Mr. Salvi tell you about the Ku Klux Klan or the Maffia problem?
A That he, actually Mr. Salvi talked about the Ku Klux Klan in the context of having members of the Ku Klux Klan on his jury.
THE COURT: Sir, I didn't hear you.
THE WITNESS: Having members of the Ku Klux Klan on his jury.
Q He didn't tell you about any conspiracy with the Ku Klux Klan revolving around him?
A No, he did not.
Q And he never told you anything about a conspiracy involving the Maffia having anything to do with him?
A No.
Q He never said anything like that?
A Correct.
Q In all of your four interviews, did you ask Mr. Salvi about, what you testified yesterday, was some conspiracy having to do with the KKK or Maffia?
A Yes, I did.
Q You asked him about that, did he tell you about it?
A No.
Q So he never told you anything about that?
A No, he told me it was too private.
Q Now Mr. Salvi has written -- I had asked you about Dr. Resnick's notes, did you have an opportunity to read them?
A No, I did not.
MS. HINKLE: If I could ask, Your Honor, these have been marked as B, I believe for identification. I just ask if you could take a look at them?
(Brief Pause)
Q Now, does it appear that Dr. Resnick wrote no alibi at the top of those notes?
A Yes.
Q Now, part of the, and also, "I don't care for N.G.R.I. defense?"
A Correct.
Q In several of the written statements that Mr. Salvi has authored Doctor, did you see that at the beginning of those statements, Mr. Salvi wrote, "After the proceedings are through, I wish to have a interview with Barbara Walters within a year. I will not release all information until that interview?"
A Yes I did.
Q He wrote that several times, in fact, didn't he?
A I only remember one reference to Barbara Walters.
Q Well, do you remember him writing that until the time of that interview, he wouldn't release all of the information that he has?
A Correct.
Q Now, Mr. Salvi also indicated to the people at Bridgewater that he desired to have the media present at his trial?
A Yes he did.
Q That he thought it was a good idea to have the media, although he knew that the Judge could preclude them if the Judge wanted to?
A Yes.
Q But that he thought that would be mistake because it is better to have a media for this trial?
A He said he wanted the media present at the trial.
Q And in some of Mr. Salvi's statements, including the one on May 26th, he wrote I wish to release statements and attend interviews, please print statements in their entirety?
A Yes.
Q Doctor, a delusion, you testified about what delusions, or you testified yesterday that you believe Mr. Salvi's beliefs are delusions?
A Correct.
Q And in fact, you have defined delusions in an article you wrote to the Committee for Public Counsel Services about experts, do you recall writing that?
A It was an outline, of course, yes.
Q That you authored?
A The outline, yes.
Q And do you remember writing for a definition of delusion, "A false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality and firmly sustained in spite of what almost everyone else believes and in spite of what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof of evidence to the contrary?"
A Correct.
Q And is that you definition of delusion, Doctor?
A That's the standard taken from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
Q And further you wrote. "The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of a person's cultural or sub-culture," and in parenthesis, "(Not an article of religious data)?"
A Correct.
Q Is that right, is that a fair definition of delusion Doctor?
A That's the general standard, yes.
Q Now Doctor, is it your opinion that the belief that if all catholics join together, it might better assist catholics financially, is that false?
A Not necessarily, no.
Q In fact Doctor, it could be very true, couldn't it?
A Yes.
Q And the idea that if all catholics joined together financially, that individuals wouldn't have financial problems, lose homes, lose jobs, things like that, or that if they did, they could still be taken care of, is that false?
A I'm not -- I don't know that you can characterize it as false or true, I think it is unrealistic.
Q Well, unrealistic is very different from a false personal belief based on incorrect inferences?
A Correct.
Q Isn't it?
A Yes.
Q So that's not a false belief?
A Not necessarily.
Q In fact, groups that form, join together in order to support each other, join religious groups, people who form communes, a lot of people have that belief, and in fact do it?
A They may.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you.
THE WITNESS: They may.
Q Now, what about the idea that if all the catholics got together behind the Pope, the Cardinals, and the Bishops, then the strength of the Catholic Church, as a political force would be greatly increased, is that a false belief Doctor?
A It could potentially be increased, yes.
Q I'm sorry?
A Yes, it could be.
Q Could be a false belief?
A Well, it could be a false -- Yeah, it could be a false belief.
Q Doctor, isn't it true, I don't know how many catholics there are in the world or even in America, but let's say if all those catholics believe that every single thing the Pope said to do and did anything the Pope said to do, wouldn't that make catholics a very strong force in America?
A That would be speculation on my part.
Q Well isn't it true Doctor, that it would make them a political force?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. If you can answer it.
A It would take such speculation on my part. I don't know how to figure out what political power it would give them or not.
Q Well Doctor, it certainly, therefore, by your answer, isn't the false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality, is it?
A No.
Q So that's not a delusion?
A Not looking at those limited facts, no, that wouldn't be a delusion.
Q That's not a delusion?
A Saying that a group of individuals, like individuals, gathering together would potentially have greater political power, financial power, that limited idea is not necessarily a delusion, no.
Q And Doctor, what about the idea that if there were a cashless society that existed, that that could provide harm to people in the sense that it might be not as sound economically, but it might allow the people who control the credit system, whatever it is, to know what individuals are doing, is that a false belief?
A I'm trying to, -- I'm hearing the question in sort of two parts, that's why I'm pausing. Could you ask it again please.
Q I will break it down for you.
A Yeah.
Q The belief that a cashless society, that is one that is manages solely on credit where money, actual money was not ever transacted, that that could have some harmful consequences to people's personal financial conditions and to the economy, is that a false belief?
A If the concern is purely economic, it probably not a false belief.
Q And what about the idea that if there were a system where everything I did or bought, for example, was on one card, that anywhere I went was noted in the card, then the people who ran that system, whoever they might be, might know everything I had been doing, is that a false belief?
A If your belief is that it's a potential problem?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q Well, Mr. Salvi never told you that this was happening at the moment, did he?
A Yes.
Q He believed that if there was a cashless society, these things would occur?
A No.
Q Your testimony is that he told you it was happening now?
A Yes.
Q Well in fact, a lot of people do use credit cards to do purchases and things like that, don't they Doctor?
A Yes.
Q Well you probably do?
A Sure.
Q And in fact, when you do that, records of all those purchases do get generated?
A They do.
Q Records of when you buy things with your credit cards, when you take out automatic teller deposits, you get those slips?
A Yes.
Q That's not false, the fact that that occurs?
A No.
Q What about the idea that there may be coming some kind of a new world order that has a potential for danger, is that a false belief Doctor?
A I think, again, characterizing it as a false believe, I really can't answer it that way.
THE COURT: I can't hear you sir.
THE WITNESS: I can't answer as it's posed.
Q Well, it's clearly not, again by your answer, a false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality?
A I wouldn't say that, no. I don't think it is a fair characterization.
Q Well, what about the idea that the mark of the beast, the mark of the beast is a biblical reference, isn't it Doctor?
A That's my belief, yes, my understanding.
Q And what about the belief that the mark of the beast refers to Satan and Satan's influence in life?
A It's a matter of personal philosophy and religious belief.
Q What about the idea that there is some kind of a potential conspiracy to centralize world economics, and so that other forces, United Nations or whatever, might eventually control the world, is that a false belief?
A In my personal view?
Q Yes.
A It's a delusion.
Q You believe that's a delusion?
A I do.
Q Well, a lot of people share that belief, don't they Doctor?
A Well, there are some people who entertain that belief.
Q Well, in fact, there's a lot of people who entertain that belief.
Whether you and I might agree with it or not, a lot of people entertain that belief, don't they Doctor?
A I would certainly be unable to categorize it as a lot of people. I have no idea how many people believe that.
Q Well, your definition of a delusion is a false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality and firmly sustained in spite of what almost everyone else believes, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And a lot of people, again, whether you or I believe it, believe that there is such a potential economic conspiracy which is occurring, don't they?
A I can't answer that, that's your characterization of a lot of people.
Q Well, do you know, are you familiar with a man named Pat Robertson, Doctor?
A I know of him, yes.
Q Do you know who he is?
A Yes.
Q And you know that he in fact owns the Christian Broadcasting Network?
A I'm not aware of what he owns.
Q Something called the 700 Club?
A I believe I've seen him in connection with that, yes.
Q Are you aware that he in fact ran for President in 1988?
A Yes.
Q And that in fact he finished second in the Iowa caucasus ahead of George Bush?
A I don't recall that, but it is certainly possible.
Q Well he ran in mainstream American politics for elective offices, isn't that right?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Are you familiar with Mr. Robertson's book, A New World Order?
A No, I am not.
Q Have you ever read it?
A No, I haven't.
Q If I suggested to you that Mr. Robinson wrote a book called, The New World Order, which was published just a couple of years ago, I believe the -- 1991, and that in that book, Mr. Robertson talks about, in fact, talks about if any private group can guarantee easy money to the economy, they would be in a position to loan money, build factories, buy stocks and participate in growth opportunities?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: What is that question?
Q Are you aware, are you familiar with this, Doctor?
A No.
Q Well, if I were to suggest to you that that is contained in Mr. Robertson's book, that I am reading from Page 118 in it, and that this book, at least on the cover, says it was a best seller, other people might well share that belief, isn't that right Doctor?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Well Doctor, it is important to know in characterizing something as a delusion whether other people believe that or not, isn't it?
A That is one element.
Q Because there might be some things that you or I might think is an odd belief, but that it might be shared by a lot of people and therefore by your definition of delusion, not be a delusion?
A No, the question is whether, not whether the idea is shared by others, but is the depth of the feeling, the evidence, and the other symptoms that would go along with that, that would suggest it is of a delusional quality.
Q Doctor, isn't there a line -- there are a lot of people who have odd and unusual beliefs in this country, aren't there?
A There are.
Q A lot of people who have beliefs that you may not agree with at all?
A Absolutely.
Q A lot of beliefs that may sound odd?
A Correct.
Q In fact, a lot of people believe that there are such things as U.F.O.s, don't they?
A Yes.
Q Do you happen to believe that?
A No I don't.
Q But a lot of people do share that belief, don't they?
A There are people who believe in U.F.O.s, yes.
Q Is it your opinion that all those people have delusions?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A First of all, I would never characterize an individual as having a psychiatric symptom or a mental disorder, unless I personally evaluated them. And again, an idea, in of itself, is not a delusion, it goes to the quality of the belief, the depth of the belief, and the other symptoms that go along with delusional behavior.
Q So an idea is not in itself a delusion, you just said, isn't that right?
A Correct.
Q The idea of Mr. Salvi, one of the other things Mr. Salvi believes, is that Free Masons, in some way are involved in some of these activities and is concerned about it, isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Salvi in fact talks about Free Masons?
A Yes.
Q Now do you think that that one his delusions, Doctor?
A I believe it is part of one his delusions, yes.
Q If I were to suggest to you that in this same book, Mr. Robertson writes at some length about the Masonic connection and the connection of Masons to these activities that he opines are occurring and may occur, would that surprise you?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A The fact that Pat Robertson writes about it?
Q Yes.
A No, it wouldn't -- what was the question, amaze me?
Q Would that surprise me?
A Would that surprise me, no.
Q Now again, we are talking about a man who ran for President, got a significant number of votes, and apparently owns a National Television Network, Doctor, are you suggesting that he and all of the people who believe this are in delusions?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Well Doctor, can you tell whether these beliefs are delusions?
A Those beliefs could be incorporated into delusions and may be part of a delusional process as they are with Mr. Salvi.
Q So you believe that Pat Robertson might be delusional?
A No, I am not saying that.
Q Pat Robertson appears to have some beliefs that you might not share, isn't that right?
A Correct.
Q Now, if I were to suggest to you Doctor that, again, that throughout this book, that at one point at the end of this book, Mr. Robertson talks about a world welfare system and his beliefs that there may be some activities on the part of Government to create a world welfare system, is that a delusion?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. You used a term, delusional system, what do you mean by that?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, often when people have a delusion, or a delusional disorder, or have delusions, they are part of an overall patten of behavior and beliefs, so that someone, for instance, like Mr. Salvi might take elements of ideas such as things written by Mr. Robertson or in various religious tracts, and incorporate elements of those into his own belief system.
For example, talking about the idea that a cashless society is not a good idea, and then working that into an element of governmental control and the idea that a computer chip is actually the mark of the beast in a biblical sense.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Q Doctor, if I were to suggest to you, and just one more reference to this book, if I were to suggest to you that Mr. Robertson writes, "Those who speak glibly about the benefits of a world government, overlook one alarming development in modern day technology. The new micro chips in the super computer."
"In the old days, population records were maintained by hand, there was no practical way to control all of the people. To be sure totalitarian government could exercise enormous control in the bulk of populations, but people could always hide themselves or their money in some way from the authority."
"However, under a totalitarian one world government, there would be not island of freedom. Every citizen could be given a number, coded with his nation, his religion, and his personal identity."
"If we went to a world currency that is so-called checkless/cashless society, it would be possible to monitor and control all wealth other than primitive barter transactions. It would be simple to limit the types of purchases certain people could make or to prohibit all purchases."
"Never before has our world known a time, when the words of the Book of Revelations could be literally fulfilled, that no man could buy or sell without the mark of the beast."
Would that surprise you Doctor, if I said that was contained in Mr. Robertson's book?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A It wouldn't surprise me.
Q And again Doctor, that is set out, by Mr. Robertson anyway, as a set of believes, political beliefs, ideological beliefs, isn't that right?
A That's your representation, yes.
Q Well, that -- isn't that what it sounds like?
A Sure.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q And Mr. Robertson appears to be making a connection between the biblical reference of the mark of the beast to some things he believes may be occurring politically in the world today?
A My understanding, from what you read, is that he is drawing an analogy or using that as a metaphor.
Q Exactly, in fact, it goes on to say, that apparently there is a computer apparently, in Brussels, handling worldwide banking clearance, that's already been nicknamed the Beast?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
Q Have you ever hear of that, Doctor?
A No.
Q Did you have an opportunity to see some of the things that were taken, some of the documents that were taken from Mr. Salvi's house or his truck?
A I saw one packet of materials.
Q Did that include a document called a Fatima Crusader?
A No.
Q You don't remember ever seeing that?
A No.
Q It's marked as Exhibit N, and included in this exhibit -- Doctor, I ask you just to take a look at that?
THE COURT: Are you asking him to read that whole thing?
THE WITNESS: There is a great deal here, Your Honor.
MS. HINKLE: No.
Q Could you just see that the title of that, Doctor, on the page that I showed you, Page 20, is Russia, the United Nations, and the anti-christian one world government?
A It says, "Little Known Facts about Russia, the United States, and the Anti-Christian One World."
Q And it you could just turn to the next page, Doctor, the title of that article, is the New Age Movement, Kingdom of Satan on Earth?
A Yes.
Q And begins talking about how the term new age is shorthand for new world order, one short of christianity, and one comprised of one world religion and one world government?
A Correct.
Q And could you to the bottom of that page, on the right hand column Doctor, does it also write, this dribble, which is referring to something beforehand, has become a, quote, "Major world influence by serving Free Masonsary?"
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you see that?
A Yes I do.
Q And in fact this document, Doctor, on the next page.
MS. HINKLE: If I may approach, Your Honor
THE COURT: Yes.
Q That on the next page the document goes on to talk about overthrow of, utter overthrow of the world religious and political order produced by Christianity, and talks about Masonic influences?
A Yes it does.
Q And that's from a document of some sort that was taken out of Mr. Salvi's apartment?
A Yes.
Q Then one of the things that you define, one of the defining factors in your opinion about delusions is that they are shared by almost nobody else, in spite of what almost everybody else believes, isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q So the extent to which odd or idiosyncratic or unusual beliefs, are shared by a significant minority of people, that's relevant in determining whether it is a delusion or not, isn't it Doctor?
A It is relevant is part, yes.
Q Some religion beliefs people share, for example, might sound, if taken out of context, like they are totally delusional?
A Correct.
Q But when one puts them in the context, either the ethnic context or the religious context, of the individual, then they really aren't delusions at all?
A They would not be categorized as delusions, correct.
Q And in fact, political beliefs, that something might be a good idea in the future, or is a concern that one might have about the future, those aren't delusions in the same personal sense that you define delusions, are they?
A They could be part of a delusion.
Q Well, you say a false personal belief, and in fact, all of your examples in that outline, were about people who themselves saw these events as involving them, isn't that right?
A I don't recall all of the examples in the outline.
Q Dr. Resnick, in his interview with Mr. Salvi, asks, questioned Mr. Salvi at some length about whether he was the leader of the catholics?
A Yes.
Q And he attempted to ask Mr. Salvi if he himself believed he was the leader or if he thought he had some special role in this, or special mission, isn't that right?
A I believe he did.
Q And Dr. Resnick asked Mr. Salvi if he thought he was anointed by God in a sense, to do this, isn't that right?
A I believe Dr. Resnick did ask him about that.
Q And didn't Mr. Salvi, despite being asked it numerous times, denied that he had any particular leadership role, but in fact opined he thought all catholics should be leaders in this group?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I don't recall the specifics of his response to Dr. Resnick. I know when we asked him, when I asked him --
THE COURT: Please respond to the question.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry I don't recall his exact response to Dr. Resnick.
Q You don't remember Mr. Salvi saying to Dr. Resnick, no I don't mean me. I am saying I think everyone, every catholic should be a leader in this activity, do you remember Mr. Salvi saying that to Dr. Resnick?
A No I don't.
Q Do you remember Mr. Salvi saying to Dr. Resnick, no, I haven't been anointed by anybody, I just saw this plight of other catholics and I just thought, I would start expressing these views that I have, these beliefs that I have?
A I don't recall him saying that.
Q You don't recall any of those things?
A No.
Q At one point, Dr. Resnick is referring to Mr. Salvi's beliefs, this persecution of the catholics, do you remember Mr. Salvi saying, well, it's not really persecution, it's the absence of assistance?
A Yes.
Q That that's what he was concerned about?
A Correct.
Q Now Doctor, did you know that Mr. Salvi's family apparently when he was a teenager, that they were in some financial difficulty?
A I learned that from other written materials, Mr. Salvi denied that.
Q And apparently they were in some danger of losing their home at some time?
A That's what I learned from the other material.
Q And that Mr. Salvi's father had to work two jobs apparently for a time and Mr. Salvi's mother was unable to stay home because she had to become employed?
A Yes.
Q And that kind of an experience on the part of young teenager might influence their beliefs and be concerned about things like catholics losing their homes, getting into financial trouble, isn't that right, Doctor?
A It could, yes.
Q Doctor, doesn't it indicate in the D.S.M. IV, specifically say that clinician assessing schizophrenic symptoms and evaluating delusion must take cultural, socioeconomic and religious experiences into account?
A Yes.
Q Because that's highly relevant in determining whether somebody's belief system, an odd belief or a delusional system that the one might be looking at?
A Correct.
Q In fact, you attempted --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
Q You had asked Mr. Salvi at some length about whether he thought he was victimized himself, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Salvi said, his response was, "Not really victimized, I just think some of the conditions aren't very good here in prison," isn't that right?
A You're referring to victimization in the prison?
Q Yes. Well you asked him if he was victimized and he responded that conditions really aren't all that great, particularly the food?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q And that was his concern, that the food wasn't always all that great?
A Correct.
Q Now you testified Doctor, I believe yesterday, that part of what you perceive as Mr. Salvi's, one of his delusions was that he was food poisoned, is that right?
A Early on, yes.
Q Now the only reference -- did you talk to Mr. Salvi about that?
A I -- that was -- I asked him about the food poison incident.
Q And he said, "I don't see that too much, it's mostly that the food is not very good?"
A Correct.
Q And in fact, you had a chance to look at the Bridgewater records?
A Yes.
Q Mr. Salvi never complained about food poisoning while he was at Bridgewater for sixty days?
A No, he did not.
Q And he never complained -- did you have a chance to see the records from when he was at the Norfolk jail?
A No.
Q Well, do you know of any other experiences where Mr. Salvi said he was food poison?
A No, it was limited to that.
Q Limited to this one incident when he first was incarcerated down in Virginia, isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q In fact, that was as far as you know, the first time Mr. Salvi would have had to become acclimated to prison food, isn't that true?
A I believe so, yes.
Q And he was never incarcerated as far as you know any time before that?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q But that the was the first time as far as you know Mr. Salvi was incarcerated and that he apparently had some unfortunate experience with the food?
A He had some experience with the food that he --
Q That he attributed to the possibility of food poison?
A Yes.
Q And after that, there was no more reference to food poisoning for the last seven months, isn't that right, Doctor?
A I believe so.
Q In the interview that Dr. Resnick conducted with Mr. Salvi, did you observe Mr. Salvi to note, actually quite clearly, when he had already been asked a question before?
A (No Verbal Response)
Q Saying for example, "You've already asked me that, why are you asking me again?"
A Yes.
Q He noted that several times in fact, didn't he?
A Yes he did.
Q And did you ever notice Doctor, whether Mr. Salvi was right each time he said that, that in fact, that question had already been asked before?
A Dr. Resnick persisted in trying to get answer to a question, yes.
Q But it appears that Mr. Salvi was in fact correct, when he would say, "You've already asked me that question once," that that was an accurate perception of what had occurred?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, Dr. Resnick attempted to do a mental status examine on Mr. Salvi, isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q On the tape?
A Yes.
Q And one of the questions that he asked Mr. Salvi had to do with a fire in a movie theater?
A Yes.
Q That's a commonly used example by professionals in your field, isn't it?
A It is.
Q And the point of that is to see if the person understands that the problem with the hypothetical is that you don't want to do something that would inspire panic in the audience, isn't that right?
A It's whether a person can think their way through a situation.
Q And Mr. Salvi in fact, suggested that the right thing to do, Dr. Resnick had said maybe tell the manager, maybe tell the front desk, Mr. Salvi suggested tell the usher, that's all you should have to do?
A Yes.
Q Mr. Salvi, throughout that interview with Dr. Resnick was very polite, wasn't he?
A I don't believe -- I don't think it's a fair characterization.
Q Well, he never stormed out of the interview or anything, did he?
A No.
Q And he never, in fact, he never really raised his voice in great anger to Dr. Resnick, did he?
A Not that I recall.
Q He did occasionally express some angry sentiment?
A Yes.
Q Annoyance?
A Yes.
Q He expressed some annoyance with you in fact?
A He did.
Q And occasionally he would laugh?
A He would, I don't know if I would characterize it as a laugh.
Q Well, would you characterize it as a smile or a smirk?
A Sort of a smirk.
Q And he did that with you on a number of occasions?
A He did.
Q And he actually laughed several times in the interview with Dr. Resnick, didn't he?
A Yes.
Q Now Doctor, in your work at Mass. General, do you ever have an occasion to be involved with people making medical decisions?
A Yes.
Q In fact, frequently, I would imagine?
A I do.
Q And there are categories of people who make medical decisions that may appear irrational to you or I, isn't that right?
A That's correct.
Q In fact that's a commonly seen activity I imagine you're involved with on a regular basis?
A Yes.
Q Some people for religious views make those kinds of choices?
A Yes.
Q Some people make them simply because they for example, don't want chemotherapy, or don't want a surgery, or some -- don't want to take certain medication?
A That's correct.
Q And in fact, competent people are permitted to make irrational choices in the medical community everyday, aren't they?
A Yes they are.
Q Even if the choices would result, might possible result in their death very shortly?
A Yes, if they are indeed competent.
Q If they're competent.
Now Mr. Salvi during the interview with Dr. Resnick, again, he never left the room or refused to answer, I don't mean refuse to answer particular questions, but stop answering all questions?
A No.
Q And that was about a two and half hour interview?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Now, having been involved -- having an opportunity to read those records Doctor, Mr. Salvi does not appear to have been a management problem at Bridgewater in any way?
A Other than those few incidents where he ended up in the intensive treatment unit, no.
Q And at least two of those incidents were because Mr. Salvi was the reported victim of some event, isn't that right?
A That's my understanding.
Q The only incident that Mr. Salvi appeared, at least by the reports, to provoke was throwing some juice on an officer one day when he came back from court, isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q Other than that one incident, there are no reports of any management problems from Mr. Salvi for sixty days at Bridgewater?
A Correct.
Q Also heard, when Dr. Resnick was interviewing Mr. Salvi, do you recall Mr. Salvi saying to Dr. Resnick anybody with any common sense would take some of the things I say with a lot of grain of salt?
A I remember that comment.
Q Now that's a proverb in a sense, isn't it, grains of salt?
A I believe so.
Q And it is used in an appropriate way, in that case by Mr. Salvi, isn't it?
A I'm not sure I would characterize it as a proverb, but it is used appropriately in context there.
Q And it's sort of an abstract thought, isn't it?
A Not really.
Q Well, that someone maybe shouldn't take everything I say completely seriously, isn't that what it is suppose to mean?
A That's the reference.
Q But it is a metaphor for that?
A Yes.
Q In your interview on February 23rd Doctor, Mr. Salvi never injected any of these catholic beliefs he had or his religious believes, except when asked questions by you or Dr. Kinschereff, isn't that right?
A I believe so.
Q Or when he asked you what your religious affiliation was?
A Yes.
Q But for the bulk of that interview, the subjects of layoffs of catholics, economics, those things did not come up?
A Correct.
Q You asked Mr. Salvi some questions about his religious beliefs and he answered you?
A Yes.
Q But other than those, he did not, for example as you see on the tape with Dr. Resnick, Mr. -- that interview, I'm sorry, this is a difficult question, I will rephrase it completely.
That interview on February 23rd, lasted about two hours?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Salvi never went on at length about his belief systems as he did on the taped interview with Dr. Resnick?
A I don't believe so, no.
Q Now you testified, you testified previously regarding mental illness issues and criminal responsibility, and competency?
A Yes.
Q And you recently testified in a case involving a man named Wayne Lo, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And I believe it's Hampton Superior Court?
A Yes it was.
Q And Mr. Lo was a man accused of murdering and killing several people at a college in the western part of the state?
A That's right.
Q And Mr. Lo was eventually convicted of those crimes, wasn't he?
A He was.
Q Now you testified Doctor, that Mr. Lo lacked criminal responsibility, was not criminal responsible?
A Correct.
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection to this line of questioning with respect to relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q Let's go back to the Dr. Resnick interview Doctor.
Do you recall -- I was asking you whether Mr. Salvi said on a number of occasions that he was not the leader of this movement in any personal way, and you said that you didn't recall?
A Right.
Q Do you recall Dr. Resnick asking Mr. Salvi on Page 12, let me --
THE COURT: One minute please, is that Exhibit A?
MS. HINKLE: That is Exhibit A for Identification, Your Honor. I have it as Page 12.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. HINKLE: A little beyond or passed the middle of the page, Your Honor.
Q Dr. Resnick asked Mr. Salvi the question, "Let me go back to your role, do you see yourself as a potential leader of the catholic people in bringing about better times?"
And to which Mr. Salvi replied, "I see each and everyone of the catholic people to read what I want to tell them and to come that route."
And Dr. Resnick said, "Write it."
And Mr. Salvi said, "You don't have one leader, you don't say well this individual is our leader."
Do you recall Mr. Salvi saying that?
A Yes.
Q And then on the next page, he goes on to say, Dr. Resnick asks him "Well you need leadership."
And Mr. Salvi says, "Yes you do, but we have it already, it's called a Pope, a Cardinal, and a Bishop."
Do you recall Mr. Salvi saying that?
A Yes.
Q And do you also recall, I have this as Page 22, Your Honor. At that very top of that page, that Dr. Resnick asks Mr. Salvi, again about his religious beliefs.
"Has God instructed you to do this?"
To which Mr. Salvi replies, "Well in so many ways, well, you see if people heard it, does God have to come down from heaven and say, John I want you to help the people."
To which Dr. Resnick, a couple of lines later says, "So it's your own initiative?"
Do you recall Dr. Salvi -- Dr. Resnick and Mr. Salvi having that conversation?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection to the relevance of what he recalls.
THE COURT: Overruled. Sir, you may answer.
A Yes.
Q When you testified Doctor, in the case involving Mr. Lo, you testified that Mr. Lo did not have criminal -- was not criminally responsible for those incidents?
A Correct.
Q And you testified that in your opinion Mr. Lo suffered from a very atypical delusional disorder, isn't that what you testified?
A From delusional disorder, yes.
THE COURT: I didn't hear that.
THE WITNESS: Yes, delusional disorder.
Q You testified that that man suffered from a delusional disorder also?
A Yes.
Q And that is was an unusual delusional disorder, and it didn't really fit any of the criteria of the D.S.M. IV?
A I don't believe that that's an accurate characterization.
MS. HINKLE: May I just have a moment.
THE COURT: Do you have a series of questions in this area?
MS. HINKLE: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Then let's stop now for our morning recess. You can step down Doctor.
Counsel, would you approach the side bar before we leave.

SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

THE COURT: Does Mr. Salvi have anything in his hands to hand out? I saw a member of the press sitting almost directly behind him. He's moved now.
MR. LaCHANCE: I don't think he has anything. I have what he gave me, what was left for me yesterday afternoon that he wanted handed out.
THE COURT: I saw one of the reporters sitting almost directly behind you, and I just didn't want him to be available to receive anything as we were filing out. The reporter is gone now.
MR. LaCHANCE: Oh, all right.
THE COURT: Thank you.

END SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

(Recess)

MS. HINKLE: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.

CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION
Ms. Hinkle
Q Dr. Schouten, when you testified in the case the Commonwealth versus Wayne Lo, did you testify that Mr. Lo was suffering from a psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified?
A I believe so, yes.
Q That in fact it was a type of illness where the primary symptom is psychosis, and in Mr. Lo's case, a delusion?
A Correct.
Q But that there were some other characteristics set out in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, that were not necessarily met in Mr. Lo's case?
A That's my recollection.
Q Well that's what you testified to, isn't it?
A I don't have any transcript in front of me.
MS. HINKLE: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LaCHANCE: Your Honor, I would say, I object to any use of that transcript.
It is my understanding that a motion was filed by counsel prior to the hearing for anything that was going to be used at the hearing, and we have not been provided, I have not been provided with a copy of that transcript.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LaCHANCE: As a matter of fact, my understanding is that inquiries were made about obtaining a transcript --
THE COURT: I'm sorry I didn't hear you.
MR. LaCHANCE: Inquirers were made about obtaining the transcript of that case that Dr. Schouten was involved in and counsel were told that that transcript was not available.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
Q And you testified that Mr. Lo, although in your opinion is suffering from a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, but which the primary symptom was psychosis in Mr. Lo's case, delusion, but that some of the other characteristics set out in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual were not met?
A That's not really a fair characterization of that.
Q Well that's what -- isn't that what you said?
A In part.
Q And then you said that there is more information required to give a person that label, is that right?
A That's right.
Q Since that time -- at present, what I think is accepted for a delusion disorder, both paranoid and grandiose?
A That's right.
Q Is that your testimony?
A Yes.
Q And that's what you testified Mr. Lo was suffering from?
A Yes, delusional disorder.
Q Delusional disorder. And Doctor in fact, you testify also that Mr. Lo engaged in a compulsive act when he shot those individuals at that college, did he?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection, on relevance grounds.
THE COURT: Please come to the side bar if you would.

SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

THE COURT: Yes, what is the relevance of this line of testimony?
MS. HINKLE: Your Honor, I think it is relevant because apparently from reading the transcript, the Doctor testified that Mr. Lo's actions were an impulsive act, and despite some evidence that Mr. Lo, in fact, had planned it for some time, that didn't effect his decision at all, that this had been an impulsive act.
That despite evidence that may go to show that it was anything other than impulsive, in fact, not only planned, but that Mr. Lo had said, I believe it is month before the incident, that he was putting copies of pages of the Book of Revelation from the bible around his room so that if he shot someone, people would think he was crazy, that that didn't change the Doctor's opinion about it being an impulsive act or about Mr. Lo's delusional disorder.
THE COURT: Now, he -- this is in connection with the trial on the criminal responsibility?
MS. HINKLE: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It has nothing to do with competency?
MS. HINKLE: No, it does not have anything to do with competency.
THE COURT: And your objection sir?
MR. LaCHANCE: My objection is first, it isn't relevant to this competency proceeding. Secondly, it --
THE COURT: Well, it s an attack on the credibility of the doctor.
MS. HINKLE: It is Your Honor.
THE COURT: And I cannot bar that.
MR. LaCHANCE: Well, the problem I think is Your Honor, it doesn't involve the same diagnosis as in this case. It doesn't involve even a closely -- close factual situation to this case.
THE COURT: Well, let me investigate further. Are you trying to say that the Doctor's opinions are tailored to the circumstances, or that he cannot be relied upon because he -- I don't know, exactly where you are going with his credibility.
MS. HINKLE: A couple of places Your Honor. One is that in fact the diagnosis is a bit different, Mr. LaChance is right, but the primary definition that this Doctor is saying he formed his opinion on Mr. Salvi had to do with delusions and it is delusions that he was testifying about with regard to Mr. Lo.
The question is really that despite evidence that would seem, that one might find, that you Your Honor, as a fact finder might find, might seem to make one infer, at least seriously question, one, the delusional nature of behavior when one is saying I'm putting things around so that in case somebody thinks I shoot somebody, it's going to look like I'm crazy.
THE COURT: Simply discounted the preparation and the roots --
MS. HINKLE: Exactly.
THE COURT: -- or the evidence, in that circumstance, so he's discounting other evidence in this case?
MS. HINKLE: Exactly.
THE COURT: It should bear upon his opinion. It's a different case.
MR. LaCHANCE: My problem is, that they are stating certain things as facts that may or may not have been because I don't know because I don't have the transcript in the Lo case.
For example, they are representing that he left certain pages of Revelations around in order -- I'm sure that came from another witness at trial, but I don't know whether that witness' trial statements were corroborated in any way, were, you know, there are many reasons for discounting information.
Dr. Resnick is right, planning those, Dr. Resnick and Dr. Schouten have both indicated before that the fact that the individual has the ability to --
THE COURT: Well, we get -- it can be explained. You can certainly bring this back up on redirect, but I will let the witness either acknowledge the factual underpinnings of the testimony or not. If he cannot acknowledge that this is what happened at the trial, then I won't allow it. But if he does, I think it is fair input even though this is quite lengthy.
MS. HINKLE: It is Your Honor. I have maybe five more questions. Five more minutes of questions.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
END SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

Q Doctor, I believe I asked you, your testimony was that Mr. Lo's committing this shooting was an impulsive act in your opinion, isn't that what you testified too?
A No, I don't believe that's accurate.
Q Well, didn't you testify that the actual shooting, the actual conducting the shooting in your opinion was an impulsive act?
A After a period of preparation, that the ultimate event was impulsive.
Q And there was in fact a significant amount evidence that was introduced at trial, on the planning on the part of Mr. Lo?
A Yes there was.
Q Of ordering guns, sometime in advance, and even offering to pay extra money to have them delivered on a short schedule?
A Yes.
Q And evidence that Mr. Lo had sought a specific type of ammunition and had ordered that as well?
A Yes there was.
Q And also, there was evidence in that trial that Mr. Lo had told other people that he was planning on shooting people at the college?
A That was less clear.
Q Well, there were some people who testified that that was the case?
A Right.
Q Although there might have been same people who testified to the contrary?
A Correct.
Q And in fact, Doctor, wasn't there evidence at that trial that some time before the shooting, that another student at the college had seen in Mr. Lo's room that Mr. Lo was putting pages from the Book of Revelation around his room?
A Yes.
Q And when asked why by this other student, Mr. Lo said in case I shoot someone, so people will think I am crazy?
A That was his testimony I believe, yes.
Q And you testified, I believe, that that did not change your opinions in any way about Mr. Lo?
A Correct.
Q Now Doctor, didn't you also testify in regards to the Lo case, that there were some people who are simple amoral, that is, that they do offenses because they don't care?
A Yes.
Q Doctor, you also indicated that you had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Salvi with Dr. Kinschereff on February 23rd, is that right?
A Yes I did.
Q Of this year.
And in that interview, you said to Mr. Salvi that the focus was really about what it has been like for Mr. Salvi to be interviewed by his attorneys regarding the alleged offenses, and his whereabouts, and his activities on that day, do you remember saying that to Mr. Salvi?
A Yes.
Q That was your focus on February 23rd, wasn't it?
A Yes, it was.
Q Because that was a major concern by everyone involved in Mr. Salvi's case?
A Yes.
Q In fact, that was one of your major concerns throughout this evaluation?
A Correct.
Q Is Mr. Salvi's failure to provide a narrative to his lawyers or to tell his lawyers why he won't do it?
A That's right.
Q In fact, in some sense, Doctor, that's the primary thing that you were concerned about in February and remain concerned about today?
A Yes.
Q Now, you asked Mr. Salvi at some point in that interview on February 23rd, in your particular case, what kinds of evidence would you want the Court to hear by way of your own defense, do you remember asking that?
A Yes I do.
Q And Mr. Salvi told you, "By way of my defense, what kind of evidence, well the evidence against me, supposedly is, as I understand it, what kind of evidence that I would be innocent, I don't know?"
A Right.
Q That's what Mr. Salvi told you?
A Correct.
Q And then in fact, he said that he would have to sit down with his lawyers to discuss that question?
A That's right.
Q Now, in that same interview, didn't Mr. Salvi tell you that he understood the process at the trial, was that evidence was presented, then the jury deliberates, then the Judge makes a decision based on the evidence?
A Yes.
Q And Doctor, in that same interview, you indicated to Mr. Salvi, you were talking to Mr. Salvi, and you said to Mr. Salvi, you kept saying that he was unable, unable to convey to us why he won't talk, those kinds of questions, do you remember saying those to Mr. Salvi?
A Yes.
Q Well the other option there of course, is unwilling, isn't it?
A One of the other options.
Q And in fact, you said to Mr. Salvi in that interview, but that you are simply unable to give a fuller account, unless of course, you are just choosing not to give us your support for some rational reason, do you remember saying that?
A Yes I do.
Q And then you said, but even in that case, you are demonstrating that you are unable to work with your defense team, do you remember saying that?
A Yes.
Q In fact Doctor, that's not true?
A Not true in a legal sense. In a lay sense in which I was speaking to Mr. Salvi, it is certainly true.
Q Well Doctor, if Mr. Salvi were choosing not to give a narrative for some rational reason, he would be unwilling to work with his defense team on that point, isn't that right?
A Yes.
MS. HINKLE: Nothing further, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. LaChance
Q Dr. Schouten, on cross-examination, you were asked a whole series of questions about whether you knew certain things from the video tape of Dr. Resnick or from his report, notes and so forth, correct?
A Yes.
Q Specifically you were asked about some statements John Salvi made to him about his role in this expression of catholic persecution, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you have specific conversation with John Salvi about his role and what you have termed a delusion?
A Yes I did.
Q Would you tell us what that conversation was?
A Mr. Salvi told me that he believed that there was a small group of individuals within the catholic community, that the masses were waiting upon that group of individuals. He referred to it as an apostleship and that these were the people who would have to take action and lead the catholic people.
Q And was he part of that apostleship?
A Yes he was.
Q Now sir, you were also asked a series of questions about whether John Salvi went off onto the religious mantra, if you will, on February 23rd, is that right?
A That's right.
Q Was there a particular kind of interview being conducted on the 23rd?
A Yes.
Q What was that?
A After my experience with Mr. Salvi, on February 8th in which I could not get him to move off the issue of persecution of the catholics and his plans for a grand welfare scheme and printing money through the Vatican printing presses, I had wanted to focus him much more concretely, so we tried to focus the interview away from those issues and on to his ability to work with counsel and also onto his responses to the psychological testing.
Q And how did you go about doing that?
A By asking very specific questions.
Q Had you in the first interview told him about the effect that his discussion with you about the Catholic Church might have on the issue of competency?
A Yes I had.
Q And what had you told him about that?
A I told him that we -- that there were issues around his competency to stand trial and I was there to evaluate him in terms of his mental status, and possibility of mental illness.
Q And did you express to him that continued expression of that might have some effect on your determination of mental status?
A He understood that, that was made clear to him.
Q During the four times you talked to Mr. Salvi, did he ever express any interest in being found incompetent to stand trial?
A No, quite the contrary.
Q When you say quite the contrary, was he adamant about standing trial, going to trial?
A Consistently.
Q Now, you were also asked a whole series of questions about delusions and were shown and read to out of some books and pamphlets in which the prosecutor attempted to show that the information Mr. Salvi conveyed to you was not unique to him, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Did that information change your opinion in any way as to whether Mr. Salvi is suffering from a delusion?
A No, it does not.
Q Why not?
A Well for one reason, I have no idea of, for example on the one pamphlet, anyone with a printing press can turn out these materials, so I have no knowledge that the number of people, how many people subscribe to this belief.
And even if I did, this sort of information is used as a matter of political rhetoric in many situations so there is no way really to test it out or to establish any of these facts based on the point that it is in print.
Q And you were also asked a series of questions --
THE COURT: Excuse me. Let me interrupt you for just a moment. Sir, if in fact these beliefs were shared by others, as opposed just being on paper somewhere, would that have any impact on your opinion?
THE WITNESS: If they were beliefs shared by others as possibilities, as ideas, no. That would not mark them necessarily as delusions. That goes to the question of the depth and quality of that belief.
Q And in your four interviews with Mr. Salvi, did you get an opportunity through questioning and observing him, close up if you will, to determine the depth and quality of his belief in these systems?
A Yes I did.
Q And what did you conclude about the depth and quality of his belief in what he was expressing?
A That the way in which they were put together, and the extent of them, the consistency of them marked them as delusional.
Q By the way, talking about delusions, if somebody has a belief that either his car or his parent's car is bugged, and that's he is being followed around by the maffia and the Ku Klux Klan, when in fact that is not true, is that something that you would consider to be a delusion?
A Yes.
Q And did you learn from the information provided to you in connection with your examination of a instance of conduct of that nature?
A Yes I did.
Q And do you recall how you became aware of that, sir?
A I became aware of it in written materials and statements.
Q Was that from his parents?
A Yes.
Q And did you become aware of a circumstance in which Mr. Salvi held a firm belief that evil was present in his apartment that caused him in fact to move out of that apartment?
A Yes I did.
Q Do you consider that to be a delusion?
A Yes.
Q So other than the catholic themes, there are other delusions that you considered to form your conclusion that Mr. Salvi met the criteria for schizophrenia of an undifferentiated kind?
A That's right.
Q Now sir, you were asked a whole series of questions about whether you knew what was in Dr. Haycock's report and what Mr. Salvi had said to Dr. Haycock, what Dr. Haycock had said to Mr. Salvi, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q And you were also asked a series of questions about your knowledge of what was in the Bridgewater records, correct?
A Yes.
Q You were never asked what effect your knowledge of the Bridgewater records, and Dr. Haycock's reports and information had, if any, on your own opinions and conclusions.
Let me ask you sir, do you agree with Dr. Haycocks report?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you agree with dr. Haycock's conclusions in that report?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you agree with Dr. Haycock's diagnosis of Mr. Salvi as having schizotypal personality disorder?
A No, I do not.
Q Why don't you?
A I believe that while Dr. Haycock accurately notes the presence of odd behavior, and strange thinking, difficulty in interpersonal relationships, all of which are also elements in schizophrenia, that he does have a complete picture of Mr. Salvi's mental illness.
MR. LaCHANCE: One moment, Your Honor, please?
THE COURT: Sir, what makes you believe that you have a complete picture?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe from the time I spent with Mr. Salvi and looking at the written materials, that the evidence is there, that there is more extensive, history of more extensive psychotic symptoms, and that Dr. Haycock has relied primarily on what he observed during that period at Bridgewater State Hospital.
When individuals with an illness like schizophrenia are placed in a structured setting, it often has the effect of calming down their symptoms.
When individuals with schizophrenia are in an interim period, they may have more active periods of symptoms at time and these decrease, however, during the periods of remission of active symptoms, they continue to have disorder thinking, and difficulty in a variety of areas.
Q You were also asked a series of questions involving the effect of planning might have, or the appearance of planning that an individual might have, on a diagnosis of schizophrenia, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Is somebody who has the capacity to plan events precluded from having or being schizophrenic?
A Absolutely not.
Q Somebody who has the ability to plan or prepare for events, not have the -- excuse me.
Does the person who has the ability to plan, is he therefore precluded from being incompetent?
A No.
Q With respect to all of the information that was conveyed to you by counsel through her questioning during her cross-examination, has anything made you change your opinion that Mr. Salvi is schizophrenic?
A No.
Q And has anything been made to change your opinion that Mr. Salvi is presently incompetent to stand trial?
A No, it has not.
MR. LaCHANCE: Thank you, that's all.
MS. HINKLE: Only a couple of questions, Your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
Ms. Hinkle
Q Doctor, when you asked Mr. Salvi questions in that February 23rd interview, that did not relate to religious themes, did Mr. Salvi answer you with religious themes?
A No.
Q And you indicated that Mr. Salvi strings things together and that's part of makes you believe they are delusions, these beliefs of his that he strings them together in a way that makes you belief that they are delusions?
A I wouldn't characterize it as stringing them together, but they are part of an overall picture.
Q But you also indicated Doctor, that a lot of the statements, as the Judge inquired of you, could also be viewed as political rhetoric?
A Some statements, yes.
Q And the question for whether it is a delusion Doctor, as you defined delusions in that outline you wrote, it is not whether the person who holds the belief can prove that they are true, but that you, the person questioning them, whether you can prove that they are clearly false and not shared by others, isn't that right?
A It is not a question of a proceeding in which there is a matter of proof. It's a matter of the overall beliefs, and the context in which they are placed.
Q Well, but isn't the question, when one is asking whether something is a delusion, it isn't on the person who holds those beliefs to necessarily prove that that is true, but the person questioning it can demonstrate it is false?
You define a delusion as a false personal belief, didn't you?
A That's inaccurate, I couldn't agree with that.
Q Well didn't you define, in that outline, a delusion as a false personal belief that cannot -- that a person holds onto even with strong, uncontroverted evidence that it is not true?
A That's the definition, but your interpretation of it I'm afraid is inaccurate.
Q But that's the definition of delusion?
A That's the technical definition, yes.
Q And the information that Mr. LaChance has asked you about, the KKK and the Maffia, the car bugging, and the big bird, and the evil in the apartment, all of them came from Mr. Salvi's parents, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And all of them, to your knowledge, the first time you knew of those statements was after Mr. Salvi had already been arrested for this crime?
A Yes.
MS. HINKLE: That's it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that it?
MR. LaCHANCE: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes sir?
MR. LaCHANCE: Your Honor, at this time, I would move into evidence in this hearing, all statements made by Mr. Salvi, they are attached to the motion for a competency examination which was previously filed by counsel.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LaCHANCE: I would ask that they be admitted as a group exhibit?
THE COURT: Do you have those sir, in a package? I know that they are attached to that motion, but do you have anything to put before the Court?
MR. LaCHANCE: I will provide them.
THE COURT: No, I can get them sir. I just wonder if you had it.
MR. LaCHANCE: No I do not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Exhibit 15, is it?
THE CLERK: Exhibit 15 will be marked once it is provided.
MR. LaCHANCE: We would rest, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. HINKLE: The Commonwealth has Dr. Haycock.
THE CLERK: Dr. Haycock.
MR. LaCHANCE: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.

SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

THE COURT: Yes?
MR. LaCHANCE: I am going to object at this point to the Commonwealth putting on any witnesses. The Commonwealth had an opportunity when it was their turn at the beginning of the case to meet their burden of proof. They filed simply reports, and then they rested. I would respectively suggest to the Court that I know of nothing that would allow them to now introduce evidence after the defendant has presented its case.
This isn't a trial where they get a rebuttal. I mean they could have called Dr. Haycock, they could have called Dr. Kelley, and they could have called any other witnesses in support of competency that they wanted to call at the beginning. So I object to any witnesses being called.
MR. KIVLAN: Let us start by saying, Your Honor, that yesterday when this subject came up, if you recall, Mr. LaChance said at that time, he was quite concerned about whether or not we were going to call Dr. Haycock or not.
THE COURT: Because of the report.
MR. KIVLAN: And I think he used the word, they have a right of confrontation, and that we can't simply rely on the report or words to that effect.
Clearly, under the statue and the case law, we are entitled to rely on the report as far as putting on prima facie preponderance of evidence as per burden of proof.
THE COURT: Overruled sir, so that we can go on.
MR. KIVLAN: Okay.

END SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand please.
(Witness Complies)
THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear the evidence you to give the Court in the case now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Thank you, you can have a seat, just try to keep your voice up.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Good morning Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning, sir.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Ms. Hinkle
Q Good afternoon, please state your name and spell your last name for the record?
A Joel Haycock, H-A-Y-C-O-C-K.
Q You may have to keep your voice up a bit, Doctor, so the Judge can hear you because of the air conditioner.
Are you employed, sir?
A Yes.
Q Where are you employed?
A I am employed at Bridgewater State Hospital, although I am mainly on sabbatical this year.
Q Would you set out, if you would Doctor, briefly your educational background?
A I received my undergraduate education at Harvard College, my graduate education at the University of Paris and at Brandise University.
Q And did you obtain at Brandise University a Ph.D. in the field of psychology?
A I obtained a Ph.D. in the field of sociology.
Q And where did you go from there, from that point?
A I simultaneously completed the clinical and academic training requirements for both --
THE COURT: A bit louder, sir.
THE WITNESS: I simultaneously completed the clinical and academic training requirements for licensure in psychology in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and for a degree in sociology.
THE COURT: We will turn the air conditioner off, so you can speak directly to counsel.
Q And did you indicate Doctor, that simultaneously with your degree in sociology you received the training for licensure as a psychologist?
A That's correct.
Q And were you in fact licensed as a psychologist?
A I was.
Q And when was that?
A 1986.
Q And could set out, if you would, briefly, your employment background since that point?
A From 1986 to the end of 1991, I was the Chief of Psychology at Bridgewater State Hospital.
Q And while you were obtaining your degree Doctor, had you been employed at bridgewater prior to that time, in 1986?
A That's correct.
Q And when did you begin your employment at Bridgewater?
A I did my clinical training at Bridgewater from 1980 to 1982, and my employment began in 1982.
Q And what was your first position at Bridgewater, actual employment after your clinical training
A I was a staff psychologist.
Q And then what position did you move to?
A In 1983, I became the Clinical Director of the Forensic Ward at Bridgewater State Hospital, what was then the forensic ward.
Q And what does that mean Doctor, forensic ward?
A Forensic ward are where those person are sent who have been sent by the Court for a period of observation to have some legal question that the Court wishes to be answered addressed by clinicians.
Q And would that include questions the Court might have about, for example, the competency of criminal defendants to stand trial?
A Yes.
Q As well as the question as whether defendants possess or lack criminal responsibility?
A Those would be the questions that Court might have, yes.
Q And those are the evaluations that are conducted in what you describe as the forensic ward?
A Yes.
Q Now, you indicated Doctor, in 1986, you obtained another position at Bridgewater State Hospital?
A That's correct.
Q And what was that position?
A Chief of Psychology.
Q And did that include the Forensic Ward at Bridgewater State Hospital?
A I had administrative and supervisory responsibilities for all the psychologists on the staff.
Q Including those who would conduct a forensic examination, as we just talked about?
A That's correct.
Q And have you had other positions at Bridgewater State Hospital besides that?
A In January of 1992, I became the Clinical Program Director at Bridgewater State Hospital.
Q And what does that entail?
A I had overall -- under the direction of the Medical Director, I had overall responsibility for the clinical treatment of patients at Bridgewater State Hospital, including those persons who had been committed to Bridgewater State Hospital and those persons who had been sent there for observation.
Q And is that a position you continue to hold until today?
A No.
Q What position did you obtain after that?
A I became Director of Forensic Services on July 1, 1994.
Q And what does that position entail?
A That entails supervisory responsibilities over those persons who conduct all the forensic evaluations at Bridgewater State Hospital, and a set of those persons that treat the persons that have been sent for forensic evaluation at Bridgewater State Hospital.
Q And that would include, I take from your answer, those persons who supervise the people who do all of the competency and criminal responsibility examinations at Bridgewater?
A That's correct.
Q And is that the position you continue to hold `till today?
A Yes.
Q How many of those individuals are there Doctor, who conduct forensic examinations at Bridgewater?
A Currently?
Q Yes.
A I think about a dozen.
Q And you are responsible for supervising all of those people?
A That's correct.
Q In addition, do you at times, conduct forensic examinations yourself?
A That's correct.
Q Now, do you also have teaching positions, Doctor?
A I do.
Q And what are those teaching positions?
A I'm Assistant Professor in Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester.
Q And are you also involved in research activities?
A I am.
Q And what type of research activities are you involved in?
A I have several different areas of research interest. One of those concerns suicidal behaviors among forensic populations. One of those concerns, insanity acquities, the characteristics of insanity acquities.
One of those concerns the historical emergence of a distinct group of patients who today are known as forensic patients, but in times past, were known by the oxymoron, the criminally insane.
And I also have some research interest in the relationship between discreet signs and symptoms, and assaultive behavior.
Q And Doctor, have you received any particular awards regarding your research or grants to conduct your research?
A I have.
Q And could you list the most significant ones?
A I have received three awards from the American Suicide Foundation for my work on suicidal behaviors among forensic populations.
I received the Healy Endowment Award for my work regarding the emergence of this particular specialized population of forensic patients.
I received a fellowship from the American Counsel of Learned Societies, which is a organization comprising the American Psychological Associates, the American Sociological Association, and a number of academic associations for that same work.
I received a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities for that same work.
I received an award together with my co-investigator for a study of the possible effects of conditional release legislation on the characteristics of persons who might be acquitted by reason of mental disorder.
Q Have you also, Doctor, author publications in the field of psychology?
A I have.
Q Now are you also designated as a -- or do you have the classification of a designated forensic examiner?
A I do.
Q And when did you obtain that designation?
A 1987.
Q And just briefly Doctor, what is that designation?
A By regulation, by statute and by regulation, the Department of Mental health can designate certain persons that it believes to be qualified to perform court ordered evaluations under Chapter 123 of the Massachusetts General Laws, Annotated.
The Department of Mental Health has set up a process of instruction, supervision, and training to designate certain persons as qualified to do those evaluations.
Q And that's this designated forensic examiner position?
A That's correct.
Q And is there also a step above that which is a designated forensic supervisor?
A That's correct.
Q And have you obtained that designation as well?
A I have.
Q And is that also pursuant to the same rules and regulation you just talked about?
A That's correct.
Q And does that then put a person, or put you in this case, in a position where you are permitted to supervise other people who are attempting to learn how to do forensic examinations, and become certified themselves?
A That's correct, somebody can not become designated as a forensic, as a designated forensic examiner whether one is a psychiatrist or a psychologist in this Commonwealth unless you have such a supervisor who supervises your work.
Q And how long have you been such a supervisor, Doctor?
A Since 1987.
Q Now Doctor, have you had occasion to supervise the work of other people, in that time since 1987, who have then gone on to get designation and becoming examiners themselves?
A Yes I have.
Q How many of those people would you say?
A Approximately 12 to 15.
Q Now, have you had occasion Doctor, to do competency examinations yourself?
A I have.
Q How many competency examinations have you conducted as of today?
A Approximately 300.
Q And Doctor, when you supervised the work of these other people who are seeking to become examiners themselves, what is your responsibility with regard to the examination that they are conducting on competency for example?
A A supervisor, a designated forensic supervisor in the Commonwealth assumes full clinical and legal responsibility for the evaluation of the designated, of a candidate for designated forensic examiner status. And in fact, co-signs each one of their reports as an indication of that responsibility.
Q And have you had occasion to supervise that work and therefore co-sign those reports as responsible for them for people who you have been supervising?
A Yes I have.
Q And how many additional competency examinations have you been involved with as the supervisor taking full legal and clinical responsibility?
A Probably something on the order of five to six hundred.
Q So between the competency examines you yourself have done, and those you have supervised and signed as taking full clinical and legal responsibility, you have done somewhere between 800 and 900 competency examinations or evaluations?
A That would be my best estimate.
Q Now, have you had occasion to conduct competency examinations of people charged with murder, for example?
A I have.
Q People charged with multiple murders?
A I have.
Q On a number of occasions?
A Yes.
Q And have you had occasion to testify as a expert witness before in the Courts of the Commonwealth regarding questions of whether particular criminal defendants are competent to stand trial?
A Yes I have.
Q Now, how many occasions, if you know, Doctor?
A I'm afraid I don't know.
Q Now Doctor, are there some people whom you have opined as a result of your examination are not competent to stand trial?
A I have offered observations to the Court that I felt that certain individuals were significantly or severely compromised by signs and symptoms of mental disorder in those abilities, usually considered by the Court in its determination of competency to stand trial, but I, not myself, opined that someone was not competent to stand trial, that's a legal designation.
Q If I could ask you about that Doctor, it is your opinion, or the opinion of your profession possible, that it is not for you to determine whether someone is, in that, using that term competent because that is a legal term for the Judge to decide?
A There's a section of forensic profession that does believe that, yes. There are others who in the forensic profession who do not believe that, but there is a section that does, and I happen to belong to that section.
Q So that for purposes just of examination here today Doctor, when you say, for example, that you have offered the opinion that someone is significantly impaired in the abilities the Court generally looks at to determine competence, I might call that, you found that he was incompetent?
A Yes, you might.
Q And when you say on the contrary, that you did not find any significant impairment of a particular defendant's abilities in the areas the Court generally looks at to determine competency, I as a lay person might say you found that person competent?
A You might.
Q Now, are there people who are currently being held for example, at Bridgewater State Hospital, who you have offered the opinion that they -- offered the opinion that they lack those abilities and that a Court has therefore found them not competent to stand trial?
A That's correct.
Q Do you recall how many times you have offered opinions that were consistent with a Court's eventual finding that a particular criminal defendant is not competent?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I would estimate that in my own reports, perhaps 50 times.
Q Now, could you describe, if you would Doctor, the procedure when someone is sent to Bridgewater for a competency evaluation?
A The first procedure is to read the Court Order to determine whether or not they have been sent, whether or not the Court has ordered a competency evaluation only, or a competency evaluation and a criminal responsibility evaluation.
Q Let's say if only a competency evaluation has been ordered, what is the procedure that is followed at Bridgewater?
A An evaluator is assigned to do the evaluation, and that person is not involved in the individual's treatment while they are at Bridgewater State Hospital, for the purposes of that evaluation. The evaluator attempts to collect as much relevant data possible.
If there are previous psychiatric records, or histories of psychiatric or psychological treatment in the past, one attempts to obtain releases that would allow one to review those records.
One typically speaks with the defense attorneys regarding the interactions between the defense attorneys and the defendant.
And one conducts generally clinical interviews, with the defendant.
MS. HINKLE: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to submit the curriculum vitae of Dr. Haycock to be marked as an exhibit.
THE COURT: Yes. It's exhibit 16.
THE CLERK: Exhibit 16 so marked.

(Exhibit Number 16, Curriculum Vitae, Marked and Received into Evidence)

THE COURT: We will have to pause for a moment.
(Brief Pause)
Q Doctor, how did you first become, or how were you first contacted regarding the case of Mr. Salvi?
A I received a telephone message from the former Director of Training of the now defunct Law and Psychiatry Program of McLean Hospital, who had been my supervisor and my Director of Training, and who is a very prominent member of the forensic psychology community in New York, indicating that she had been contacted by a member of the defense team and asked for a referral and that she had given a member of the defense team, my name.
Q And did you have occasions at some point to speak to someone on the defense team?
A I did.
Q And were you inquired of as to whether you would be involved in this case?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Just answer this question yes, or no.
A No. As stated -- As asked.
MS. HINKLE: May counsel approach side bar?
THE COURT: Yes.

SIDE BAR CONFERENCE

THE COURT: Yes.
MS. HINKLE: Your Honor, I just thought that we would, rather than me asking questions that might be inappropriate, I thought I would just find out, I didn't know exactly what Mr. LaChance is objecting to or what the problem is.
What I understand is that apparently Ms. Bassil contacted Dr. Haycock and asked if he would be willing to evaluate the defendant for them, and he indicated he would not because the defendant had the potential of coming to Bridgewater.
THE COURT: And you don't feel that that's --
MR. LaCHANCE: I don't think it is relevant to any issue in the case.
THE COURT: Well sir, one could speculate that the Commonwealth is offering it to show credibility or at least the reputation of the witness, that he would be acceptable to the defendant.
MR. LaCHANCE: Except that we don't know where the referral came from.
THE COURT: I don't know, what other objection do you have?
MR. LaCHANCE: That's it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
END SIDE BAR CONFERENCE
Q Did you have a conversation with Ms. Bassil as a result of this phone message that you just related?
A I did.
Q And in that conversation, did Mr. Bassil ask you if you would be willing to evaluate --?
A No, she did not.
Q I don't want to characterize it, what did Ms. Bassil ask you?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I received a message that I had had a phone call from Ms. Bassil. Because of the earlier message from my former training director, I knew what it might pertain to. I returned the phone call and stated immediately, I don't want to know anything about your client, if that's what you are calling about because there is a conflict of interest here, something to that effect, but there was never a question posed to me that I answered. I just immediately stated, I don't want to know anything about your client.
Q So you didn't actually have that question from Ms. Bassil?
A Excuse me?
Q So you didn't actually ever get asked that question?
A No.
Q Was that the message that was left for by your friend?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
A I don't recall --
THE COURT: No.
MS. HINKLE: I will withdraw it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
Q You indicated to Ms. Bassil that you would be unable to be involved in any way with the defense because of the potential for a conflict of interest?
A That's correct.
Q And was that the end of the conversation?
A No.
Q Was there any more discussion about your involvement with the defense just limited to that?
A I was asked if I could suggest evaluators who might look at Mr. Salvi.
Q Now, you in fact, at some point then later, when was this phone call if you recall?
A It was in January sometime, but I don't know. I did not make a record of it.
Q Prior to the time that Mr. Salvi ever came down to Bridgewater?
A Yes.
Q Your conversation was?
A Yes.
Q In fact some two months or so before that?
A It would be more than two months I believe.
Q Now, Mr. Salvi was sent to Bridgewater on March 30, 1995, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And he remained there until sometime in late May, 1995?
A He remained there -- may I consult my report, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes sir.
A I believe that he remained there initially until May 9th, when he was returned to this Court.
Q And then he was remanded back to Bridgewater for an additional period of time, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And remained there until sometime in late May?
A That's correct.
Q Now, you received a significant amount of information from the Commonwealth regarding Grand Jury transcripts and police reports about these events, is that fair to say?
A After I appeared and testified in this Court, before this Court.
Q Then some information was provided to you by the Commonwealth?
A That's correct.
Q Police reports, Grand Jury minutes, and the like?
A Yes.
Q And did you also receive a significant number of pieces of information from Mr. Carney and Ms. Bassil?
A Yes I did.
Q And did you also have conversations with Ms. Carney and Mr. Bassil -- excuse me, Ms. Bassil, and Mr. Carney?
A I believe at that point, are you talking about during the whole period of time?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q You also had occasion to examine Mr. Salvi, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And how many in total, how many times did you examine Mr. Salvi?
A I met with Mr. Salvi eight times, but I would say that I examined him seven times.
On one of those -- on the eighth meeting, he simply explained to me why he was declining to have an interview on that date.
Q So in seven of those occasions, you would consider those to be actual interviews, where you evaluated Mr. Salvi?
A That's correct.
Q And in the total of those hours, together, total some eleven hours?
A That's correct.
Q And did you also order some psychological testing to be done Mr. Salvi?
A I did.
Q And did you receive back, not only a report on those, but also the results themselves?
A I received a report on those. I did not examine the results themselves.
Q Now as part of the procedure at Bridgewater, was Mr. Salvi also observed by a number of other members of the clinical staff at Bridgewater?
A That's correct.
Q And that's the unusual procedure at Bridgewater, in fact, isn't it Doctor?
A That's correct.
Q And that would include other psychologist, forensic psychiatrists, and other clinicians as well?
A That's correct.
Q Now Mr. Salvi also was seen upon his entry into Bridgewater by a forensic psychiatrist as part of the regular procedure?
A He was seen upon his entry, well, his admission interview was conducted by a grand fellow in forensic psychiatry, yes.
Q And was Mr. Salvi also on a few occasions in what I might call the seclusion area of Bridgewater after some incidents which had occurred?
A Yes.
Q And at least a couple of those incidents, Mr. Salvi was reported to have been the victim of some events, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q But he -- for, I suppose, safety and security reasons, both individuals involved were moved to a separate seclusion area?
A I believe that's correct on all those occasions. But it certainly was true on some of those occasions.
Q And during that time, when somebody is in that area, they are monitored on a ten -- every ten minutes by clinical staff, is that right?
A I believe it is every ten minutes, might be every fifteen minutes, but it may be every ten minutes.
Q Now, there were also some reports made of any incidence Mr. Salvi was involved in while at Bridgewater?
A That's correct.
MR. LaCHANCE: I'm going to object to the continuing leading nature of the questions.
THE COURT: Please rephrase your questions.
MS. HINKLE: I want just trying to move along.
THE COURT: Yes.
Q Doctor, as a result of your interviews with Mr. Salvi, your examination of all of the documents that you have had opportunity to review, and based on your training and experience with a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, did you from an opinion, after your observations, as to whether Mr. Salvi has any signs or symptoms of a mental disease or defect which seriously compromises his abilities in areas usually considered by the Court in determining someone's competence to stand trial?
A I did.
Q And what opinion did you form, sir?
A The opinion I formed was that there are no signs or symptoms of mental disorder which compromise in any significant way those abilities unusually considered by the Court in its determination of a defendant's competence to stand trial.
Q Now Doctor, if we could, can we break -- so again to use my parlance Doctor, in terms of the way we started out this questioning, a lay person might say you found him to be competent?
A A lay person might say that.
Q Now Doctor, there are several components to that conclusion which you reached, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And in fact, the conclusion that the defendant has no significant inabilities in those areas, involve a variety of considerations that one must evaluate?
A That's correct.
Q And those, in a general sense, include both an awareness and knowledge and ability to appreciate the Court procedure itself?
MR. LaCHANCE: Again, I object to the leading nature of the question.
THE COURT: Please rephrase the question.
Q What are the main components of the opinion that you reached regarding Mr. Salvi's competence?
A The main components were that there was no evidence, no data, to suggest that any sign or symptoms of mental disorder compromised Mr. Salvi's present ability, ability, to consult with counsel in the preparation of an adequate defense, or his rational understanding of the nature of the proceedings against him.
Q Let's talk first about the second part, if we could, Doctor.
In order for a person to be found competent in the Courts, one must have a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings against them, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And are there components of that ability?
A Yes there are.
Q And does one of those components relate to a person's knowledge, or not knowledge, but ability to understand the Court procedure, for example?
MR. LaCHANCE: Again, objection as to the leading nature of the questions.
THE COURT: I will allow that. You may answer sir.
A Could you restate the question please.
Q Certainly. Is one of the elements that you look at in making -- or you looked at in making that judgment, Mr. Salvi's ability to understand the Court proceeding?
A Yes.
Q And what components make up that element?
A Competency evaluations are context dependant, and pragmatic in orientation. One considers both the psychological presentation of the defendant, and the particular demands that trial on a particular set of charges might place on that defendant.
Therefore, the range of matters that one might consider in a competency to stand trial evaluation and the depth into which one might pursue them, would differ depending on what it was that the defendant was required to stand trial on.
Q Did you attempt to determine whether Mr. Salvi had an appreciation of the charges against him?
A Yes I did.
Q And did you determine that Mr. Salvi, in fact, did have an appreciation of charges against him?
A Yes I did.
Q And what formed the basis of that opinion, sir?
A On several occasions he recited for me a number of the charges that were against him and he seemed to cover all the major charges, that I was aware of.
In particular, he was aware of the two most serious counts against him, and in some ways that would be the focus of my attention, would be if someone understood the seriousness of their charges, and if they faced a range of charges, if they understood the most serious.
Q And what were the ones Mr. Salvi told you about?
A Two counts of murder, two counts -- five counts of assault with intent to murder, interference with a reproductive clinic. I would have to consult my report, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may, sir.
A A count of traveling between State lines, these are quotes from Mr. Salvi. I'm sorry, here I have it as six counts of assault, two counts of murder, one count of traveling between state lines, interfering with a reproductive clinic, asked about the nature of the assault charges, he stated, quote, "Assault with intent to murder and assault with a dangerous weapon."
Q Were there any other pieces of data that formed your opinion that Mr. Salvi had an appreciation of the charges against him?
A Yes. We reviewed the charges against him on a number of sperate occasions. I was interested in whether or not he could state the charges, state the possible consequences if convicted on those charges, spontaneously, without prompting, except --
Q And did he do that?
A Yes he did.
Q Now, did you also form an opinion about Mr. Salvi's appreciation of the range and nature of the possible penalties for the charges for which he is currently charged?
A Yes I did.
Q And what opinion did you form about whether Mr. Salvi appreciated the range and nature of the possible penalties for these charges?
A I formed the opinion that he did appreciate the range of possible penalties that he would faced were he to be convicted on these charges.
Q And on what did you base that opinion, Doctor?
A Statements he made to me.
Q And what did Mr. Salvi tell you about the potential possible penalties that formed your opinion that he had a full appreciation of them?
A He, again, the evaluation took place over a period of time, Mr. Salvi initially had a little confusion about the fact that he would have -- were he to go to trial on federal charges, he would have a separate trial for that, and a separate from the state trial and that the verdicts in the state trial in no way bore upon the verdicts in a federal trail were he to have one.
Q And did you explain that to Mr. Salvi?
A I did. And he retained that information. Initially, he thought that he could face the death penalty but that stemmed from this confusion about federal verses state charges. I explained to him that he could not face the death penalty on his Massachusetts charges.
Q Did Mr. Salvi explain to you, at some point during one of your interviews with him, in detail, the potential penalties for the state charges which he would face?
A Yes he did.
Q What did he tell you?
A He understood that on charges of murder, he could face life in prison without the possibility of parole. He stated that to me.
He also understood that on a reduced charge of murder, that is, in this Commonwealth, on second degree murder, although he would be sentenced for a very long period of time, life, that he would be eligible for parole after fifteen years, on a single count.
We spent some time dealing with the question of concurrent verses consecutive sentencing.
Q You and Mr. Salvi talked about that?
A Yes.
Q And did he also express some understanding to you about the potential penalty for manslaughter?
A I would have to consult my report Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may.
A Yes. he stated, "Manslaughter carries a sentence of five to fifteen years, and you can be paroled after five.
Q Now, did you also form an opinion Doctor, about Mr. Salvi's ability to understand the Court procedure, the sequence of a trial, and the purposes of testimony and cross-examination?
A Yes I did.
Q And what opinion did you form about whether Mr. Salvi possesses all of those abilities to understand all those subjects?
A I found Mr. Salvi to have no disability in his understanding of any of those subjects.
Q And what information caused you to form that opinion, Doctor?
A His statements.
Q What did Mr. Salvi tell you about those subjects?
THE WITNESS: May I?
THE COURT: Yes sir.
A Are we specifically on the sequencing of a trial?
Q Well, let's begin with that Doctor.
Were you able to determine that Mr. Salvi understood the sequence of a Court trial on criminal charges?
A Yes.
Q And did he explain to you what that sequence would be?
A He understood the difference between arraignment and trial, between hearing and trial. He understood the participants in a trial process.
Q Now, did you ask Mr. Salvi who would be present during his trial?
A I did.
Q And what did he tell you?
A Quoting from my report, "The Judge, the jury of my peers, the prosecution comprised of the District Attorney, and attorneys and secretaries, etcetera, media, camera, notes and film makers, officers, and of course the courthouse itself," period, end of quote.
He then spontaneously added, those are my words, quote, "Witnesses, alleged witnesses, evidence, alleged evidence, the defendant, and defense attorneys," period, end of quote.
Q Did you also review with Mr. Salvi whether he understood what an oath was, what perjury was, those kinds of concepts?
A Yes I did.
Q And did you form an opinion as to whether Mr. Salvi had the ability, and in fact did know, what those concepts, important for a trial, were?
A I did.
Q And what formed your basis for that opinion Mr. Salvi understood those things?
A Statements and definitions that he gave to me.
Q Did he in fact, tell you what perjury was and what an oath was?
A Yes he did.
Q And did you ever attempt to determine if Mr. Salvi had the ability and in fact, an understanding of the Fifth Amendment?
A Yes, Mr. Salvi has a very good understanding of the Fifth Amendment.
Q And what formed the basis for that judgment on your part, Doctor?
A He invoked it on many occasions.
Q And did he invoke it in fact, throughout the seven interviews you had with Mr. Salvi?
A He selectively invoked it. He sometimes invoked more. He sometimes invoked it less.
Q Is one of the other factors that you evaluated in reaching your final opinion about Mr. Salvi Doctor, his ability to appraise the role of defense counsel?
A Yes.
Q And did Mr. Salvi, in your opinion, have the ability to appraise the role of defense counsel?
A Yes.
Q And what formed the basis for that opinion, sir?
A His description of what the role of defense counsel was.
Q What did he tell you?
A He stated, quote, "My attorney works for me, an attorney should work for the person they have been recruited, or been appointed to defend." Period, end of quote.
Q And did Mr. Salvi -- was Mr. Salvi -- was there anything else about Mr. Salvi's actions during the time you had him at Bridgewater State Hospital, that indicated to you that he understood and had the ability to understand the role of his counsel?
A Yes.
Q What kinds of things helped you to form that opinion?
A Statements and actions of Mr. Salvi.
Q In what way Doctor?
A He frequently expressed the wish to consult with his attorneys on particular matters. He had meetings with his attorneys while he was there. He had telephone conversations with his attorneys while he was there, at least according to him and his attorney.
He declined, the one interview that he declined with me, he explained that he was declining because he had not yet had an opportunity to consult with his attorneys on the matters he and I had discussed on the day, I believe it was the day previous to that.
Q Were you able to form an opinion Doctor, as to whether Mr. Salvi had the ability and in fact, possessed the knowledge to appreciate the role of the prosecution in this case?
A I did.
Q And what opinion did you form?
A I formed the opinion that he does appreciate the role of prosecution in this case.
Q And what did you base that on, generally?
A His statements.
Q Any particular statements?
A Yes. Mr. Salvi stated to me that the prosecution, quote, "Works against the defendant, if you are the defendant." Period, end of quote.
Q Did you also determine as a result of Mr. Salvi's statements to you, Doctor, that he had the ability, and in fact, an appreciation of the role of the Judge in the trial?
A Yes I did.
Q And did you also form the opinion that Mr. Salvi had the ability to appreciate and in fact did appreciate the role of the jury in this trial?
A Yes I did.
Q And did you also form the opinion that Mr. Salvi had the ability to appreciate and did in fact, appreciate the role of witnesses in this trial?
A Yes I did.
THE COURT: Ms. Hinkle, we will have to stop here. Thank you sir, you may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

(RECESS)
MS. HINKLE: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.

CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
Ms. Hinkle
Q Doctor, in forming your opinion about Mr. Salvi's abilities regarding the issues relevant to competency, did you evaluate whether Mr. Salvi had the ability to appraise available legal defenses?
A I did.
Q Did you form an opinion as to whether Mr. Salvi possesses that ability?
A I formed the opinion that he does possess that ability.
Q Now Doctor, on this question as well as the questions I asked you before the lunch break and on the next few that I am going to ask you, did you set out your reasons, that is the data, upon which you based those opinions in your reports?
A I did.
Q In fact, did you go to some length to set those reasons and data out in some detail?
A I did.
Q And are they set out in the data section of your report corresponding to your conclusions?
A They are.
Q Now, did you also attempt to evaluate Doctor, whether Mr. Salvi had the ability to engage in manageable behavior in the Court throughout the trial process?
A I did.
Q And did you form an opinion as to whether Mr. Salvi has that ability?
A I did.
Q And what opinion did you form whether Mr. Salvi has the ability to engage in manageable behaviors within the courtroom?
A I believe Mr. Salvi has the ability to conform his conduct to the decorum of a Court of Law.
Q And again Doctor, you set the reasons out for that in your report?
A Yes I do.
Q Now, did you also investigate whether you believe Mr. Salvi had the ability to relate to his attorney?
A Yes.
Q And what opinion did you form as to whether Mr. Salvi possesses the ability to relate to his attorney?
A I formed the opinion that he has the ability to relate to his attorney.
Q And again Doctor, did you set out in some significant detail in your report, the data that you observed while Mr. Salvi was at Bridgewater that leads you to believe that he has the ability to relate to his attorney?
A Probably comprises the largest single section of my report.
Q Now, did you also Doctor, evaluate whether Mr. Salvi has the ability to plan legal strategy including a variety of subjects including a potential of pleading guilty to certain charges?
A I did.
Q And what opinion did you form with regard to whether Mr. Salvi had that ability?
A I formed the opinion that he has the ability to -- that he knows various possible legal defenses, and he has the ability to choose among them.
THE COURT: I didn't hear that last sentence.
THE WITNESS: That he has the ability to choose among them.
Q Now Doctor, did you also attempt to appraise or to determine whether Mr. Salvi has the ability himself to appraise the likely outcome of certain matters or of the criminal process?
A Yes.
Q And did you form an opinion whether Mr. Salvi possesses that ability?
A Yes I did.
Q And what opinion did you form regarding that question?
A That he has that ability.
Q And did you also consider in evaluating the issue of Mr. Salvi's ability, whether he had the capacity to disclose to his attorney, pertinent facts surrounding the offense, including his movements, timing, mental state and actions at the time of the events?
A I did.
Q And what opinion did you form regarding whether Mr. Salvi has that capacity or ability?
A I formed the opinion that he has that ability and he has that capacity.
Q And did you set out in some detail in your reports, the reasons why you formed that opinion?
A I provided both data, opinions, and an argument connecting the data to the opinions in my reports.
Q And did you also Doctor, evaluate whether Mr. Salvi had the capacity to disclose to his attorney the pertinent facts surrounding the offense, I'm sorry, strike that.
Whether he had the capacity to reasonable challenge, realistically challenge prosecution witnesses?
A Yes I did.
Q And what opinion did you form with regard to whether Mr. Salvi has that ability or capacity?
A I formed the opinion that he has that ability.
Q And again Doctor, did you set out your reasons for that conclusion on your part in great detail in your report?
A I did.
Q And did you also determine, attempt to determine Doctor, whether in your opinion Mr. Salvi has the capacity to testify relevantly?
A Yes I did.
Q And what opinion did you form as to whether Mr. Salvi had the capacity or ability to testify relevantly?
A I formed the opinion that he has the capacity to testify relevantly, and I explained in the data section, I gave in the data section, the data on which I was relying, I gave my opinion, and I attempted to explain to the Court, the connection between those two.
Q Now Doctor, on those questions that I have been asking -- well, let me ask you one more.
Did you attempt to determine whether Mr. Salvi had the ability to engage or was engaging in self defeating versus self serving motivation in a legal sense?
A Yes.
Q That is whether he is seeking to be punished in some sense for something he didn't do or some kind of behavior like that?
A Yes.
Q And what opinion did you form regarding whether Mr. Salvi is engaged in that kind of behavior, or whether Mr. Salvi has the capacity not to engage in that kind of behavior?
A I believe he has the capacity not to engage in self defeating behavior.
Q Now Doctor, all of those questions that I have asked you, the questions I was asking on his ability or capacity, that's distinguished form willingness, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Or a decision.
Now in the competency evaluation you conducted, the focus of your examination was not on what Mr. Salvi made be choosing to do, but rather on his ability or capacity to do things?
A That's correct.
Q And you said that the bulk of your report Doctor, concerned actually Mr. Salvi's capacity with regard to issue related to counsel, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And was that related to you that that was a main concern by his defense attorney?
A Yes it was.
Q And in a general way Doctor, did you form the opinion -- was it related to you that Mr. Salvi was not providing to his attorneys a narrative of his activities during the dates that were surrounding the dates of these reported crimes?
MR. LaCHANCE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A It was related very specifically to me.
Q And was it also related to you that Mr. Salvi also wouldn't explain why he wouldn't give that to them?
A Yes.
Q And did you form an opinion Doctor, as a result of all your evaluation and your interviews with Mr. Salvi and your reviewing all the records, as to whether that was due to inability on Mr. Salvi's part?
A I did.
Q And what opinion did you form, Doctor?
A That it was not due to an inability on his part.
Q And what did you conclude that -- you concluded it was not caused by any inability Mr. Salvi had?
A I concluded that he did not have an inability to relate information regarding the events in question to his attorney by reason of any sign or symptom of mental disorder.
Q And did you opine Doctor, as to why Mr. Salvi did not do that?
A Yes I did.
Q And what was that opinion?
A He didn't want to.
Q Doctor, did you attempt -- were you given at the time Mr. Salvi first came to Bridgewater, a letter written by a Dr. Kinschereff to Mr. Carney and Ms. Bassil?
A I was.
Q And did that suggest, at the end of that letter, four possible psychiatric conditions that Dr. Kinschereff suggested should be further evaluated by Bridgewater?
A It laid out four possible psychiatric conditions that should be further evaluated, but not specifically necessarily by Bridgewater.
Q And did you look at that letter, and in the course of your sixty day evaluation of Mr. Salvi, did you look to see if you felt any those disorders were present?
A Yes I did.
Q And did you form an opinion as a result of all of your evaluations and observations and that of the Bridgewater staff as to whether in your opinion Mr. Salvi was schizophrenic?
A I did.
Q And what opinion did you form?
A Mr. Salvi is not schizophrenic.
Q And did you attempt to determine whether Mr. Salvi had any of the other three disorders that Dr. Kinschereff suggested in his letter?
A Yes I did.
Q And what did you determine?
A I determined he did not have any of them.
MS. HINKLE: No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Mr. LaChance
Q Dr. Haycock, did I understand you to say that your degree, your Ph.D. is in sociology and not psychology, sir?
A That's correct.
Q And do you have any further formal training with respect to clinical psychology, sir?
A Could you explain the meaning of further?
Q Well, did you have any formal training with respect to clinical psychology?
A Yes.
Q Where was that?
A Some of it was at Boston University in the clinical psychology program. Some of it was at Boston College. Under the consortium agreement, among a number of the universities in the Boston area, one can take courses at no extra cost, among any members of the consortium. So I actually took twice the number of courses I would ordinarily of had to take if I were simply getting a degree in sociology.
Q But your degree was in fact, in sociology?
A That's correct.
Q And what is sociology, sir?
A It's the study of human behavior in groups.
Q Okay, as opposed to the study of behavior in individuals, is that correct?
A Well, it includes the behavior of individuals.
Q Did you do a clinical internship, sir?
A There is dispute about that actually.
Q Can you tell us what the dispute is, sir?
A Yes. The Director of Training, who is in charge of the internship, felt that I did, and I felt that I did not, but I did cover all the -- I did do the supervised experience that was required.
Q When you came out, you went directly into government services, did you not sir?
A Could you define government service?
Q You were working for or on a contract with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A Yes.
Q You have never been in private practice, I take it Doctor?
A You mean I've never taken private cases?
Q No, you've never been in private practice, apart from also working with the Commonwealth, or for the Commonwealth?
A No, that's not correct.
Q At this point in time, you are the president of a corporation that contracts with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is that right?
A I'm the president of a corporation that does not contract with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Q Who does it contract with, provide services for Bridgewater?
A It contracts, it's the subcontractor, it contracts with the correctional medical services for the forensic evaluations and the care, some of the psychiatric, psychological and social work care of persons sent to Bridgewater for forensic evaluation.
Q And correctional, correctional and medical contracts directly with the Commonwealth?
A That's correct.
Q Prior to that, you were an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is that correct?
A That's not correct.
Q What was your affiliation prior to becoming president of this organization that subcontracts?
A I was an employee of E.M.S.A., Emergency Medical, something services, a corporation out of Florida, which had the contract for Bridgewater State Hospital.
Q Were you at any time a direct employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A No.
Q Your experience has been almost exclusively with Bridgewater State Hospital in terms of providing forensic services, is that correct?
A Overwhelmingly so.
Q And when you say you had conducted over 300 competency evaluations, that was in connection with court referrals to Bridgewater State Hospital?
A That's correct. Not exclusively so, but that is correct.
Q The vast majority?
A Yes.
Q And in the vast majority of competency evaluations that are done, there is effectively no dispute about the evaluation, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And most of the time there is a single evaluator who reports back to Court, and indicates in the letter report to the Court whether or not the individual has the requisite abilities or does not have the requisite abilities, correct?
A Whether or not the abilities are interfered with by signs and symptoms of mental disorder.
Q You indicate -- you have testified with respect to competency on a number of occasions, is that right?
A I have.
Q And on those occasions were those contested hearings of competency only?
A Not only, no.
Q How many contested hearings of competency have you been involved with?
A I don't honestly know. Not a great many.
Q And again, that's because there aren't very many contested issues of competency in the Courts of the Commonwealth that you are aware of?
A The standard for competency to stand trial is quite low.
Q And of course you took that into consideration in coming to your conclusions in this case, is that right?
A No, that's not correct in this case.
Q The defendant was sent to Bridgewater for a 15 B evaluation on about March 30, 1995, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q At the time he was sent there, he had already been evaluated by three other individuals, is that correct, that you were aware of?
A I was not aware that he had been evaluated by three other individuals. I became aware that he had been seen by at least two, yes.
Q That was Dr. Resnick and Dr. Schouten, is that correct?
A No, it was Dr. Kinschereff and Dr. Schouten.
Q You were not aware, at the time that he came into the facility that he also had seen Dr. Schouten?
A I was not aware at the time that he came into the facility, that he had seen Dr. Resnick. I think at some point while he was in the facility, I was aware that he -- from conversations with defense attorney, I think Dr. Resnick's name came out.
Q And that he was sent there by this Court for a competency evaluation, a 15 B, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And the normal time period, statutory time period for that 15 B to be accomplished was twenty days, is that correct?
A Twenty days, not to exceed forty, that's correct.
Q And in this case, you were able to obtain information from the defense team within that twenty day period of time, were you not sir?
A That's correct.
Q And you were able to obtain information from the Commonwealth during that period of time?
A A small percentage, yes.
Q You had some, is that correct?
A I had some.
Q And during that period of time, you were able to evaluate Mr. Salvi by having clinical interviews with him, is that correct, forensic interviews with him?
A I believe, I would have to consult my notes on the hearing date, which I testified before this Court, but I believe that at the time that the twenty days had elapsed, because of the dispute between opposing counsel, regarding the conditions under which I would be allowed to see Mr. Salvi, I believe I had actually only seen him once, but I would have to consult my notes, to check the date.
Q In any event, you had not completed your evaluation within the twenty days?
A I had not.
Q And you accordingly requested another twenty days in order to complete that evaluation, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And during the forty day period, you had five interviews, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And those were on April 12th, April 20th, April 26th, May 3rd, and May 5th, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q You could have seen Mr. Salvi more if you had chosen to do so, isn't that correct?
A Not in the time period before the hearing on the conditions under which the evaluations would take place, I could not.
Q That was the maximum number of times you could see him?
A Could you restate the question before that, please?
Q Well, you saw him -- I will go back. You saw him five times?
A That's correct.
Q You saw him on the dates that I gave you, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q What I asked you was, is you determined the number of times you saw him during that period of time, right?
A I did. I determined the number of times I saw him during the second period, the second twenty days, not during the first.
Q I was referring to the entire period?
A Obviously if I could have been able to see him during the first period of time, I would have seen him more than one time, I believe, yes, one time.
Q Overall, you saw him as many times as you wished to see him, correct?
A No. I would have liked to have seen him earlier on in the evaluation as well.
Q I understand that. But the total number of times that you saw him was a number that you thought was appropriate for the forty day period, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, from the beginning of that forty day period until the conclusion of the forty day period, you had the opportunity to and did review materials that were given to you, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you received a large number of materials from the defense team, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q You received statements that Mr. Salvi had made that were seized from his car and apartment, correct?
A The listing of what I received and the description that defense counsel appended to it, or gave me of those items, is the list 1 through 13, on Pages 1 and 2 of my report.
Q You were given Salvi's statements, correct?
A I was given some statements by him, yes.
Q And those were written statements by him, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q You had an opportunity to review those written statements, is that right?
A I did.
Q And you received in addition to that, an F.B.I. report with respect, an affidavit rather with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case in broad outline form?
A That's correct.
Q You received police reports relative to a church service that Mr. Salvi had attended, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you received a number of Grand Jury minutes, correct?
A I received a selection from what turned out to be a voluminous Grand Jury record.
Q Well, you received the Grand Jury minutes of an Anderson, is that correct?
THE COURT: I didn't hear your question.
Q He received the Grand Jury minutes of a Anderson, is that correct?
A I believe so.
Q And that was the former acquaintance of Mr. Salvi, correct?
A I would have to review the document.
Q You don't have specific recollection of the contents of the Grand Jury minutes at this point in time, correct?
A Not to the point of knowing who Mr. Anderson was in relation to Mr. Salvi. But I did bring the selection of materials that was given to me by the defense, and I would be happy to flip through it.
Q And those materials included some rather bizarre statements that Mr. Salvi had written, correct?
A I don't know what you are referring to.
Q You reviewed certain statements that he had -- that had been seized from him or had been released by him, written by him?
A That's correct.
Q And it is fair to say isn't it Doctor, that those statements contained a number of bizarre assertions and ideas?
A Those statements contained a number of cliches' and they contained a great number of things, they go on at great length. I would have to -- you have to show me what it is that you are asking that I think is bizarre, and I would have to answer that question.
Q We will get to that a little later, thank you.
You indicated that at Bridgewater there is a treating facility as well as a purely forensic facility, right?
A There's treatment as well, yes.
Q And there is like a wall between the forensic examiner and the treating people as far as drawing conclusions.
The treating people do not make evaluations, and report evaluations of the individual, do they?
A They make evaluations of their mental status as part of their course in treatment.
Q Right, and there are records kept with respect to the mental treatment that is provided to individuals at Bridgewater, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And those are what we are referring to as the Bridgewater Hospital records, correct, or the Bridgewater records?
A The ones that I was referring to?
Q That's correct.
A That's correct.
Q And you had those available to you for the period of time that Mr. Salvi was there, is that correct?
A Well, they were accumulating all during the period of time, and I had those available to me.
Q Prior to your writing your report on, I believe it was May 8th, relative to Mr. Salvi, you had the opportunity to review those records up until that point in time?
A That's correct.
Q And you did do that?
A I did.
Q And they did assist you in coming to whatever conclusion you came to, correct?
A Conclusions, conclusions about clinical matters, but not about the questions I was being asked to address by the Court.
Q But it provided with information which you used in connection with your evaluation of Mr. Salvi's competence?
A That's correct.
Q At the conclusion of the forty days, you prepared a report for the Court with respect to Mr. Salvi's competence, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And with respect to your meetings with Mr. Salvi during that period of time, you drew a conclusion that he was not malingering, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q He appeared to be cooperating with you as best he could, is that right?
A As best he wished.
Q But he was cooperating with you?
A Sometimes. Sometimes he wasn't.
Q He was not attempting to make his mental condition look worse then it really was, was he?
A No, he was not.
Q As a matter of fact, he took the position from the very first period of time that he was in Bridgewater, that he was not mentally ill, correct?
A That's correct.
Q That he was competent, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And that he wanted to go to trial?
A That's correct.
Q And that's one of the principle things you relied on in making your determination that he wasn't trying to make himself look worse then he was?
A It's an element that I relied on.
Q There were other indicia, Doctor?
A There were other elements.
Q Other elements?
A Yes.
Q What were