True Crime Sir?

Newly unsealed psychiatric examinations of mass killer Dylann Roof portray a young killer seemingly more concerned with his reputation than the horrific, racially motivated crimes he committed or the punishments he faced. 

In a psychiatric report written on New Year’s Day, Dr. James Ballenger wrote that Roof primarily was interested in preserving his reputation, not the punishments he faced for gunning down nine black worshippers at Emanuel AME Church in June 2015. 

“He said that he had only two options (death and life in prison), and they are both ‘equally bad.’ That is why preserving his reputation is the most important issue for him, not whether he receives the death penalty or life in prison," Ballenger wrote in the court-ordered report of his findings. Roof was sentenced to death in January and recently moved to an Indiana prison for federal death row inmates.

Instead, Roof told the psychiatrist he preferred not to think about the fate that awaited him.

"He stated clearly that his situation is like a Palestinian in an Israeli jail after killing nine people. He said the Palestinian would not be upset or have any regret, because he would have successfully done what he tried to do. When asked what he meant when he touched on the idea ‘I had to do it.’ He said he ‘had to’ because ‘no one else was going to do it.’”

Roof said if his reputation was ruined, his “life would be ruined.” 

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel unsealed a spate of documents Wednesday related to Roof’s mental health including psychiatric exams and transcripts of his competency hearings. The release of records came on the same day Gergel denied Roof’s request for a new trial.

Gergel, who presided over the case, ordered Roof’s first psychiatric exam last November after Roof penned a letter to prosecutors calling his own defense attorneys "the sneakiest group of people I have ever met” and their efforts to portray him as mentally ill “a lie.”

Ballenger twice found Roof competent during the course of trial following exams of Roof.

Although Roof adamantly opposed introducing mental health evidence during his federal hate crimes trial, he told Ballenger he agreed with the finding that he has social anxiety disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. But he disputed a diagnosis of schizoid personality disorder, saying he had studied the psychiatric diagnostic manual and felt he was better described as having avoidant personality disorder.

“He stated that the best way he has found to explain his thinking is the analogy of his being a Jihadist,” Ballenger wrote.

At a Nov. 7 competency hearing, which the judge also unsealed Wednesday, Roof also disputed experts’ findings that he suffers autism.

“I don’t have autism, because I know, I recognize everything, you see what I’m saying? And I don’t want them to say that because it’s not true,” Roof told the judge.

Gergel then attempted to explain why Roof’s attorneys wanted to present mental health evidence – to save his life.

“But you understand if only the government offered evidence and you offered no mitigation evidence, there would be a high degree of probability that you would have the death penalty imposed? Your lawyers are trying to help you, Mr. Roof. They are trying to marshal a defense for you,” Gergel said.

“I get that,” Roof answered. “But the problem is what is the – in other words, if the price is that people think I’m autistic, then it’s not worth it.”

Roof then turned cryptic, saying that if he was labeled autistic, it might get him in trouble. 

“In what way?” Gergel asked. “You are in a lot of trouble right now, Mr. Roof.”

After Gergel prodded several times, Roof admitted: “It discredits the reason why I did the crime.”

Ballenger, a local forensic psychiatrist who was paid $680 an hour, met with Roof at the Charleston County detention center for three hours for the November examination. During that time, Roof explained further his thoughts about the crimes he committed.

“He stated that he did not hate the individuals, but he hates what the group they represent is doing and pointed out that he had said that in his FBI confession the day he was arrested. He hates the idea of what blacks are doing in the abstract. He felt that it was 'not right’ for him to look closely at witnesses because it’s impolite,” Ballenger wrote.

In the report, Roof questioned why his attorneys would think he wanted to have a Jewish doctor from the Southern Law Institute to testify on his behalf, the report stated. He complained that “she is someone who works against the white nationalist movement and is ‘Jewish on top of that,’” the report said.

During their second interview, the psychiatrist asked Roof if he was anxious about facing 30 or more witnesses who were loved ones of the people he killed, each detailing the impact his crimes had on their lives. Roof replied that he wasn’t worried about that at all and that people would “get tired of it quickly.”

“He said he would ‘sort of like it.’ When questioned about that, he stated that because he ‘did not identify with them, he didn’t care.’ He stated that he could ‘appreciate and understand’ what they are feeling and that they are valid feelings, but using the analogy he used yesterday of the Palestinian in prison for shooting Israelis, he stated that he simply wouldn’t care,” Ballenger wrote

Roof said the testimony would not affect him because, “I’m the guy who did it.”

“Why would I be sorry for what I planned and did?” Ballenger quoted him as saying. “You don’t feel sorry for people that you don’t identify with.”

Roof told the psychiatrist he found it funny that people demonized him as “evil.” He stated that “he is not an evil person but perhaps his act was.”

Roof also discussed the matter of his demeanor in court, where he sat at the defense table at times for hours staring straight ahead, even during highly emotional testimony from the shooting’s survivors.

He told the psychiatrist he felt he “can’t win” in court with where he fixes his gaze. “When he did stare at witnesses, the press commented that it was not right for him to look at victims. He stated that he feels it is not right for him to look at the victims because ‘I killed their son,’ etc. but if he looks down, he is also criticized for that,“ the report states.

Roof, who chose to represent himself during the penalty phase of his trial, added that he was fighting with his attorney so much he felt like he was sitting in the wrong table in the courtroom. Attorney David Bruck led the highly esteemed defense team.

Roof, however, said that his attorneys had “'screwed me’ so much that he doesn’t want to work with them and that decreases his chances of getting an appeal. He 'hates’ his lead attorney, David Bruck, and if he were ever out of prison that he would try to kill him,” the report added.

Roof told Ballenger he felt he would do a good job representing himself during the trial’s penalty phase, though he indicated that he would not cross examine the victims of his crimes because it wouldn’t look good to do so.

Ted Bundy’s Psychiatric Report by Emanuel Tanay, MD.

Emanuel Tanay was a Forensic Psychiatrist and a  Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Wayne State University Medical School in Detroit. In 1979, Michael Minerva, Ted Bundy’s public defender contacted him about the Chi Omega case. On May 18, 1979, Emanuel Tanay examined Ted Bundy and forwarded his report to Minerva (taken from Tanay’s book, American Legal Injustice) : 

Mr. Bundy is a 32-year-old, handsome-looking man, dressed with the casual elegance of a young college professor. He was meticulously groomed, from well-cared-for fingernails to freshly washed hair. He was in total command of the situation. The deputy sheriffs appeared more like part of his entourage than policemen guarding a prisoner.

The conference room had many comfortable chairs. Two chairs, however, were particularly comfortable looking; these were taken by the deputies into the hallway for their own use. Mr. Bundy, in a very firm but definite manner, instructed the deputies that this arrangement did not meet with his approval. They not only complied with his request to return the chairs, but seemed to be apologetic.

I was accompanied to the conference room by Mr. Minerva, Public Defender for the Second Judicial Circuit, who has a large staff of lawyers working for him. Observing the interaction, however brief, between Mr. Bundy and Mr. Minerva would lead one to believe that Mr. Minerva was Mr. Bundy’s assistant.

Mr. Bundy made a few pointed inquiries to Mr. Minerva about certain work to be done and made a few polite but firm suggestions as to future work. In my brief visit prior to the examination to the offices of the Public Defender, I heard a lawyer whose name I don’t know telling Mr. Minerva that he did go to visit Mr. Bundy in jail but never did have a chance to speak to him because Mr. Bundy was busy on the phone. Based upon various observations, I have reached the impression that the Public Defender’s office is dominated, to a large degree, by the issues and controversies involving Mr. Bundy’s case.

At the outset of the interview, Mr. Bundy commented upon the security precautions, saying that they were the result of ‘the Bundy mystique’ that has developed as a result of news media activities. This was presented in the manner of a complaint; it was, however, my impression that Mr. Bundy was taking pride in his celebrity status.

In the nearly three hours that I spent with Mr. Bundy, I found him to be in a cheerful, even jovial mood. He was witty but not flippant. He spoke freely, but meaningful communication was never established. [Bundy treated me as if I were another news media personality and not a psychiatrist who might assist his lawyers in defending him.] I asked about his apparent lack of concern that was so out of keeping with the charges facing him. He acknowledged that he is facing a possible death sentence. However, he said, ‘I will cross that bridge when I get to it.’

In contrast to the eloquence that Mr. Bundy displays when talking about abstract matters, particularly those related to his case, he has little interest in discussing his past life history or his interpersonal relationships.

His early childhood was fatherless, he is an illegitimate child. At the age of five he acquired a step-father who appears to have made a minimal impact upon him. He professes no difficulties in childhood or adolescence and specifically denies any type of antisocial activities. When confronted with the information contained in the file that as an adolescent he was involved in forging skiing tickets, he gives a detailed account of that particular venture. He described this enterprise with laughter and obvious delight. He does admit the irrefutable, like his stealing of cars, credit card misuse, etc.; however, this occurred only after his ‘unjust’ conviction in Utah for kidnapping, and according to Mr. Bundy, is to be attributed to the influence of his fellow inmates.

Stealing and forgery were completely alien to him prior to his incarceration. [It is typical that he presents information that, with his intelligence, he must know I would find not credible. When I present him with evidence to the contrary, he readily admits his misrepresentation and fabricates another explanation.]

His presentation of the evidence in the Utah kidnapping case against him is psychiatrically significant for diagnostic purposes. At first he presents it in a manner which places him in the role of being the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a prejudiced judge. He was convicted because he drove a Volkswagen, and the perpetrator of the kidnapping drove a Volkswagen also. [He omitted that additional identifying items irrefutably connected to the crime were also found in his Volkswagen.]

However, when Mr. Bundy becomes aware of the fact that I am familiar with evidence used during that trial, he rationalizes away every piece of evidence that linked him to the crime. The victim described a crowbar, pantyhose, handcuffs, and other items [which were found in his Volkswagen]. It just so happened by a fluke that Mr. Bundy, at the time of his arrest, had all of the above items and was also identified by the victim. Mr. Bundy is unable to recognize the significance of evidence held against him.

It would be simplistic to characterize this as merely lying, in as much as he acts as if his perception of the insignificance of the evidence was real. He makes decisions based upon these distorted perceptions of reality. Furthermore, he maintains an attitude and mood consistent with his perception of reality, namely, he is neither concerned nor distressed in what would be an appropriate behavior, given the charges facing him.

The interactions of Mr. Bundy with the police and the whole criminal justice system have been discussed at length with him and his attorneys. It is my opinion, based upon a variety of data, that his dealings with the criminal justice system are dominated by psychopathology.

Transcripts of the many hours of his conversations with police officers constitute a variety of a ‘confession.’ When this is pointed out to him by me, he does not dispute my inference; he merely provides a different justification. Whatever the explanation, the consequences of the verbal games that Mr. Bundy played with investigators were counterproductive to his defense and occurred against the advice of his counsel. [Bundy was primarily interested in keeping the interaction with the police going; therefore, from time to time, he offered them some juicy tidbit to keep their interest.]

Mr. Bundy “confessed” to the crimes while maintaining his innocence. The intellectual denials and emotional admissions are quite apparent from the tapes and transcripts of his conversations with the investigators. The same attitude was maintained during the interview with me. … Thus it could be argued that Mr. Bundy does have a factual understanding of the proceedings, but lacks a rational understanding of what is facing him. [The needs of the moment dominate what he does. The consequences play a secondary role.]

The interview, the conference with defense counsel, and the document material reviewed show that Mr. Bundy functions in the role of ‘chief counsel,’ and the public defender has been consistently manipulated into the role of ‘associate counsel.’

Mr. Bundy makes motions in open court, passes judgment in open court on adequacy of legal research of points raised by the defense, and schedules depositions that sometimes conflict with plans made by his defense attorneys.

In his decision-making process, Mr. Bundy is guided by his emotional needs, sometimes to the detriment of his legal interests. Mr. Bundy’s pathological need to defy authority and to manipulate his associates and adversaries supplies him with ‘thrills’ to the detriment of his ability to cooperate with his counsel.

Mr. Bundy’s activities are damaging and disruptive to a great many people who come in contact with him, in whatever capacity. This fact in itself would be of little relevance to the issue of ability to stand trial. However, the same activities are also, in some instances, self-destructive and represent an interference with his defense.

Whether the defendant is mentally fit to assume the role of a defendant presumably should have some bearing upon the nature of the contemplated defenses. …

It should be noted that Mr. Bundy placed himself in a rather disadvantageous position by his non-confession confession. To assert the insanity defense, it is generally necessary to admit the commission of the criminal act and discuss it with defense counsel and the experts. Mr. Bundy does talk to the crime investigators about ‘my problem,’ but refrains from doing so with his attorneys and the expert they have chosen.

If one assumes that Mr. Bundy has committed the crimes with which he is charged, then psychiatrically, the possibility of mental derangement at the time of the acts would be a definite consideration. I have reference to the brutality of the assaults and the infliction of severe bites including biting off the nipples. The bizarreness and brutality are often associated with mental states that may qualify for the insanity defense.

On the face of it, the denial of having committed a terrible crime is adaptive and self-serving; however, in the present context it appears to be self-defeating. I realize that it could be argued that Mr. Bundy has some chance to prevail on the claim of his innocence. I consider that exceedingly unlikely, not only because of the evidence that the prosecution has against him but also due to Mr. Bundy’s behavior in the past and in the future. I would anticipate that in the unlikely event that the prosecution’s case against him would weaken, he would, through his behavior, bolster the prosecution’s case. I have much less doubt about Mr. Bundy’s capacity to assist the prosecution than his ability to assist his own counsel.

If one assumes that his sadistic acts, including homicides attributed to Mr. Bundy in Tallahassee, were carried out by him, then psychiatrically it would be likely that various other similar acts have been perpetrated by him. It could then be argued that he is effective in concealing his criminal activities. Such an argument would be only partly true. It would be more accurate to say that he is of two minds on this issue—he attempts to conceal and reveal his involvement. He masterminds escapes with a great deal of ingenuity, and arranges for his apprehension.

I have discussed with Mr. Bundy his appraisal of the evidence held against him. It is his view that the case against him is weak or even frivolous. This judgment of Mr. Bundy’s is inaccurate according to his defense counsel and, most likely, represents a manifestation of his personality disorder.

In view of the fact that on conviction, he faces the death sentence, the acceptance of an offer of a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea was something to be considered seriously. This option was precluded by Mr. Bundy’s view that the prosecution’s case against him was weak. This is at least his explanation of why he was unwilling to consider this particular approach.

It is my impression that a major factor is his deep-seated need to have a trial, which he views as an opportunity to confront and confound various authority figures. In this last category I include, for his purposes, not only judges and prosecutors, but also his defense attorneys.

In a certain sense, Mr. Bundy is a producer of a play that attempts to show that various authority figures can be manipulated, set against each other, and placed in positions of conflict. Mr. Bundy does not have the capacity to recognize that the price for producing this ‘thriller’ might be his own life. Mr. Bundy the Lawyer does not recognize that his client, Bundy the Defendant, is not being adequately represented.

We have here an individual who has had a history of antisocial behavior during his adolescence. There is history of poor occupational performance and antisocial behavior during adult life—one felony conviction in Utah and the unfinished trial for homicide in Colorado. Furthermore, there is an undisputed history of forgery, stealing of cars, etc.

In the interview situation there is no symptomatology consistent with psychotic illness. The overall demeanor is typical for an individual suffering from a personality disorder.

Whether or not this condition is considered mental illness for criminal law purposes is a subject of controversy within law and psychiatry. In the past this particular condition was called psychopathy; at the present time the term antisocial personality is more commonly used. There are those who believe that this condition is merely a variant of normality, whereas others insist that this is a genuine illness. It is my view that sociopathy, if sufficiently severe, is an illness in as much as there is impairment of a variety of psychic functions. Among others, sociopaths have a peculiar sensitivity to intoxicating substances, particularly alcohol. Many of the more bizarre crimes committed by sociopaths are in response to alcohol consumption. The psychopathology of a sociopath is not easily recognized because they do not provide symptoms easily recognized by a lay person or even a psychiatrist. Sociopaths understandably arouse a great deal of hostility and there is therefore a tendency to view them more as “bad” than as sick. Furthermore, they themselves deny that they suffer from an illness. Be that as it may, severe personality disorder does not justify an insanity defense.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was formally sentenced to death on June 24. For the first time, the Boston Bomber’s voice has been heard in federal court in Boston, other than his not-guilty plea. He made his statement after hours of heart-wrenching testimonies from the victims’ families as well as survivors of the explosions. 

‘’Thank you, your Honor, for giving me an opportunity to speak. I would like to begin in the name of Allah, the exalted and glorious, the most gracious, the most merciful, “Allah” among the most beautiful names. Any act that does not begin in the name of God is separate from goodness.

This is the blessed month of Ramadan, and it is the month of mercy from Allah to his creation, a month to ask forgiveness of Allah and of his creation, a month to express gratitude to Allah and to his creation. It’s the month of reconciliation, a month of patience, a month during which hearts change. Indeed, a month of many blessings.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said if you have not thanked the people, you have not thanked God. So I would like to first thank my attorneys, those who sit at this table, the table behind me, and many more behind the scenes. They have done much good for me, for my family. They made my life the last two years very easy. I cherish their company. They’re lovely companions. I thank you.

I would like to thank those who took time out of their daily lives to come and testify on my behalf despite the pressure. I’d like to thank the jury for their service, and the Court. The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said that if you do not — if you are not merciful to Allah’s creation, Allah will not be merciful to you, so I’d like to now apologize to the victims, to the survivors.

Immediately after the bombing, which I am guilty of — if there’s any lingering doubt about that, let there be no more. I did do it along with my brother — I learned of some of the victims. I learned their names, their faces, their age. And throughout this trial more of those victims were given names, more of those victims had faces, and they had burdened souls.

Now, all those who got up on that witness stand and that podium related to us — to me — I was listening — the suffering that was and the hardship that still is, with strength and with patience and with dignity. Now, Allah says in the Qur’an that no soul is burdened with more than it can bear, and you told us just how unbearable it was, how horrendous it was, this thing I put you through. And I know that you kept that much. I know that there isn’t enough time in the day for you to have related to us everything. I also wish that far more people had a chance to get up there, but I took them from you.

Now, I am sorry for the lives that I’ve taken, for the suffering that I’ve caused you, for the damage that I’ve done. Irreparable damage.

Now, I am a Muslim. My religion is Islam. The God I worship, besides whom there is no other God, is Allah. And I prayed for Allah to bestow his mercy upon the deceased, those affected in the bombing and their families. Allah says in the Qur’an that with every hardship there is relief. I pray for your relief, for your healing, for your well-being, for your strength.

I ask Allah to have mercy upon me and my brother and my family. I ask Allah to bestow his mercy upon those present here today. And Allah knows best those deserving of his mercy. And I ask Allah to have mercy upon the ummah of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Amin. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

Timothy McVeigh’s response to the Department of Defense after they demanded he pay $1,058 in restitution for overpaid wages from his time in the military.

I have received your notice informing me of my debt owed to you, as well as your threat of referring me to the Justice Department (Big Brother). In all honesty, I cannot even dream of repaying you the $1,000 which you say I owe. In fact, I can barely afford my monthly rent. Assets? The only thing I own of any value is my car, a 1987 Chevrolet/Geo Spectrum. If you really want the car, go ahead and seize it.

and what it could be like.

Terre Haute is a HIGH security prison, it has a max security federal correctional institute, a medium security federal correctional institute, and a low security prison camp. The maximum security facility houses federal death row inmates. ( A special confinement unit is where most death row inmates are held. It has been accused of having inadequate conditions, and also that those on Death Row are routinely denied basic medical care, mental health services, and are subjected to noise that causes sleep deprivation.

The super-max cell is similar to this one shown above. They are by themselves, their meals are pushed through a slot, there is NO recreation but they’re allowed out of their tiny cells 3 times a week into cages.

The Death Chamber inside of Terre Haute Penitentiary. 

Executions are performed here but may be moved to a state where it is legal if it is more convenient to the family and victims. 

Between 3-12 hours before death a last meal is given to the inmate cooked by prison staff (alcohol is not an option). The inmate wears khaki pants, a white t-shirt, white socks, and slip on shoes to the gurney.

Up to 8 victims(or members of the victims family) can watch the execution, also the inmate can choose a spiritual advisor, 3 family members, and 2 attorneys. They are all located outside the execution room and can watch through glass. Ten members of the media are also allowed.

Last words are an option given to the condemned, a signal is then given by a U.S. marshal, and an executioner starts administering the lethal drugs. Time of Death is recorded, and almost always occurs early in the morning.