The testimony of Dr. William Robert Beavers was taken at 9:10 p.m., on
July 18, 1964, at the Dallas County Jail, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen
Specter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission. Present
were: Bell P. Herndon and W. James Wood, special agents of the FBI;
Clayton Fowler and Joe H. Tonahill, counsel for Jack Ruby; William F.
Alexander, assistant district attorney for Dallas County, Tex.; and
E. L. Holman, chief jailer.
Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that it is 10 minutes after 9 p.m.
and that Mr. Ruby has departed in the custody of Chief Jailer E. L.
Holman and that we are reconvening for the purpose of taking testimony
from Dr. William Robert Beavers at the request of Mr. Fowler and Mr.
Tonahill.
Dr. Beavers, would you stand and raise your right hand, please? Do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this proceeding
before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President
Kennedy shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Dr. BEAVERS. I do.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you be seated please, and state your full name for
the record.
Dr. BEAVERS. William Robert Beavers.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your occupation or profession, please?
Dr. BEAVERS. I am a psychiatrist and physician.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you set forth your home and office addresses, please?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes. My home address is 4071 Northlawn Drive, Dallas. My
office is at 3911 Maple, Dallas, which is Woodlawn Psychiatric Hospital.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe briefly your educational background,
please?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes, I finished medical school here at Southwestern in
Dallas in 1953, interned in Wayne County General Hospital in Eloise,
Mich. I had a fellowship in pharmacology in 1954–55, spent 2 years
in the Air Force in the Arctic in research and returned; I was an
assistant professor of pharmacology for 3 years and during that time
I took a year of internal medicine at St. Paul’s Hospital here in
Dallas. Following this in 1960 I entered a residency in psychiatry
at Southwestern here in Dallas and completed the residency in 1963.
Following this, I went back on the faculty of the Medical School as
assistant professor of psychiatry.
Mr. SPECTER. And, do you hold the latter position at the present time?
Dr. BEAVERS. That’s correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you a member of any accredited psychiatric societies?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes; I’m a member of the Dallas neuropsychiatric group,
the Texas Neuropsychiatric Society and the American Psychiatric
Association.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now set forth the major items of your background
with respect to qualifications in the field of psychiatry?
Dr. BEAVERS. Perhaps it should be mentioned that I am on the attending
staff at Parkland as a psychiatrist and that I consult at the Terrell
State Hospital as a psychiatrist.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you had occasion to examine Mr. Jack Ruby prior to
today?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes; on numerous occasions prior to about 4 weeks ago, did
I see him.
Mr. SPECTER. On approximately how many occasions have you examined Mr.
Ruby?
Dr. BEAVERS. Without my records here, it would not completely accurate,
but it would be in the area of about 9 or 10 times, I believe.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did you observe with respect to Mr. Ruby’s mental
condition during the course of those examinations?
Dr. BEAVERS. I saw him first—can I get somebody to help me with a date?
Mr. TONAHILL. April the 27th, the 28th, or 29th of this year.
Dr. BEAVERS. The day that Dr. West first came down was on a Sunday.
Mr. TONAHILL. Yes, that was the 26th of April.
Dr. BEAVERS. He testified Monday morning and then I saw Mr. Ruby first
on that Tuesday.
Mr. TONAHILL. The 28th.
Dr. BEAVERS. Right, and at that time he had briefly what I call
a psychotic depression, that is, he had evidences of auditory
hallucinations and a poorly defined but definite delusional system
which waxed and waned during the time of the interview, and he had
evidence of a severe degree of depression.
Because of the combined symptoms of the hallucinatory activity, the
delusions in which, and I should spell them out, that he felt that both
members of his family, his close family, were being harmed, mutilated
and/or destroyed because of his crime, and further, that there was a
pogrom concerning Jews generally because of his crime.
These symptoms plus the depression which was evident, caused me to
diagnose a psychotic depressive reaction.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now stated your conclusion regarding his mental
state?
Dr. BEAVERS. At that time.
Mr. SPECTER. And have you set forth the essence of the underlying
factors relating to that conclusion?
Dr. BEAVERS. In very brief nature—yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any different conclusion as to his mental
state today?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes. I do. I think that as I have seen him, the depressive
element has diminished, and that the delusional system has become much
less open and obvious, and that it has become more fixed, and it seems
to—and this I’m not sure of—whether it waxes and wanes depending on
the time in the weeks or whether it waxes and wanes depending on the
closeness of the people that he sees.
Mr. SPECTER. Doctor, when you say that the state is much less open, do
you mean by that, that it is now more obvious?
Dr. BEAVERS. Less obvious.
Mr. SPECTER. Less obvious?
Dr. BEAVERS. Less obvious.
Mr. SPECTER. But is it present, notwithstanding the degree of how much
it is apparent?
Dr. BEAVERS. In my opinion it is. Yes. The thing that I’m trying to
make clear here is that you take a person that has a mental illness
which shows itself in delusions, that is, ideas that things that we say
aren’t real—they can be very uncertain and changing and very obvious,
and which the person will share them with just about anybody, or they
can be much more covert—hidden—and shared only seldom, and much more
fixed, not shifting around, but fixed.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize his condition in your opinion
as he sat here today during the polygraph examination?
Dr. BEAVERS. Based on—let’s see if I can give the specific things that
make me come up with this opinion—the relationship that he has with the
prosecuting attorney, the relationship he has with his attorneys; there
are certain kinds of actions and behavior in these two relationships
which fit better in my opinion with the continuation of a covert
delusional system concerning threat to his race, his family, based on
his presumed activity in a conspiracy, then it would fit with rational
realistic appreciation of the factors in his environment.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you present today, Dr. Beavers, during the entire
course of the polygraph examination?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes, I was.
Mr. SPECTER. In your opinion, was Mr. Ruby in contact with reality
during the course of the polygraph examination?
Dr. BEAVERS. In the greater proportion of the time that he answered
the questions, I felt that he was aware of the questions and that
he understood them, and that he was giving answers based on an
appreciation of reality.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any element of a delusional state present in the
answers which he gave during the course of this polygraphic examination?
Dr. BEAVERS. I felt the only time that there were questions which
tapped any of the underlying delusional systems were the questions
relating to his opinion about the safety of his defense counsel and the
safety of his family, either past or present.
It seemed to me, because he was fairly certain in his answers during
the trial run, and then following this during the actual run of the
polygraph, there was so much hesitation and uncertainty which resulted
in no answers, that we were seeing a good deal of internal struggle as
to just what was reality.
His explanation following this, following the run of the polygraph, I
don’t think enlightened us very much in terms of what it was he was
actually feeling or thinking.
Mr. SPECTER. But would you have concluded that he was delusional had he
stated that his family and his attorneys were in danger?
Dr. BEAVERS. I’ve got to think about that. You can’t answer it “Yes”—if
it had been as strong a question as it might have been possible to
frame, but I feel that to get a perfectly accurate idea of what he
meant by it would require more than a “Yes” or “No” answer, but this
would have been one of things that had he answered it directly, that
would have led me to think that he had an area here where reality in
the testimony was poor.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, does his refusal to answer that question during the
course of the polygraph examination, subject to the analysis that the
polygraphic examinations can bring to bear, indicate that he is not in
a delusional state?
Dr. BEAVERS. I’m not sure I follow you here.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, perhaps I can rephrase that.
During the course of the polygraphic examinations, he is subject to
certain checks on truthfulness, at least to some extent.
Dr. BEAVERS. I see what you’re getting at now.
That would be an assumption, I think, on both our parts that I wouldn’t
make as to why he didn’t answer. It possibly could have been his trying
to protect in some way an answer from the polygraph.
I felt it equally likely that it was the fact that it was the second
time through on the same question which he had answered first and
then there had been a lot of thinking going on, was a great deal more
opportunity for uncertainty.
Mr. SPECTER. So, you think his first answer that his family and counsel
were in danger, indicated to some extent at least, a delusional state,
and then after he had had an opportunity to consider it, that he became
uncertain because of the greater opportunity to focus on what in your
opinion was a delusion to start with?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes. This thing to me is complicated, maybe because—for
example, if I can digress for a moment.
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; feel free to do that.
Dr. BEAVERS. Chief Holman has told me a number of times and I have seen
it in a sense, he feels that this man has tried to seem delusional. On
the other hand, at times it is quite obvious that he is trying to seem
sane and becomes quite truculent and angry at people who imply that he
was in fact of unsound mind.
One of the things I think that is extremely obvious in any of this
man’s discourse over a period of time is the marked ambivalence, that
is, the mixed feelings which are strong but on both sides of almost any
position that he has taken.
This may be true at the time or it may be true sequentially, so that
on the one hand we see him trying to appear quite sane and according
to some testimony, at times he has not done this but in fact, not
according to my own testimony, but the statements that I have heard
from others, he has tried to appear a little bit more delusional than
the person thought that he was.
Now, I felt that this answer that we saw the second time around was
consistent with the same attitude that he had when he came, when he
was stating very definitely that he was not of unsound mind. In other
words, it may have given him a little more time to cover.
Mr. SPECTER. Aside from the questions to which you have referred on
the danger to counsel and family, did the delusional state which you
have characterized as his condition of today, have any effect in your
opinion on the polygraphic examination?
Dr. BEAVERS. I can’t answer the question like it’s put, but I can
answer it this way, if I may, because I’m just not an expert on that
box over there. I don’t know that much about polygraph.
Mr. SPECTER. You are referring to the polygraph machine. Well, consider
the question rephrased in a manner that you find it convenient to
respond to?
Dr. BEAVERS. All right. I felt that so far as my ability to evaluate
this man in responding to questions, that any delusional state did not
interfere with awareness of the past, with the presence of seemingly
adequate memory, with the presence of an apparently reasonable
appreciation of reality in reference to his whereabouts and his
behavior in the critical time that was under discussion.
In short, he seemed to behave like a man with a well-fixed delusional
system in which whole areas of his thinking and his behavior is not
strongly interfered by the delusion.
Mr. SPECTER. So that the major portion of the polygraphic examination
then, except for those parts which you have already referred to, would
not be affected in your opinion by what you have characterized as his
delusional state?
Dr. BEAVERS. In my opinion, the major portion of his appreciation of
questions and of his answers would be unaffected by the delusional
state.
I just can’t, you see, in all honesty, answer something about what
the machine taps, because I think I would sort of be making a fool of
myself because I don’t know that much about polygraph.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Beavers, do you have an opinion as to whether the
polygraphic examination which was conducted here today hurt Mr. Ruby
mentally or physically in any way?
Dr. BEAVERS. Well, after the period of time, I think we were all
fatigued. I think he was and I think everybody in the room was. I felt
that he was fatigued as the rest of us were, during the course of a
pretty long number of hours of interrogation.
Whether this would come under the heading of any physical harm, I don’t
know. I would not consider it so ordinarily.
Mr. SPECTER. Would that fatigue diminish or evaporate with some rest
tonight?
Dr. BEAVERS. I think so; I think so. I know what you’re trying to
get at and I’ll try to answer it the best I can. The question of
whether his mental state, and secondarily, a physical problem would be
seriously affected by having this interrogation, by having this man
take a polygraph examination. The one thing that this man has not been
ambivalent on since my acquaintanceship with him, and I mean that so
far as I can think of literally, the one area, the one subject that
he has not been having these mixed feelings about is the fact that he
did want to make this testimony, either with truth serum or with a
polygraph or some way of getting the truth out.
Now, as a physician, and this was my role in these evaluations, not
at the time and so far until right now, not as somebody testifying,
I was concerned with his mental state, and rather early I felt there
would possibly be something useful so far as the man’s mental state,
if he could have a chance to tell his story. The mixture of what I
consider his delusional state surrounding the possible conspiracy
that people thought that he had, and therefore this tremendous number
of destructive actions, that were presumably going on, fitted to an
extent with some published reports of people’s opinions here and
abroad. In short, there has been a mixture of the delusional and of the
factual, a mixture of his confusion and a mixture of all other people’s
confusion, and he is aware of it and has been, because apparently he
gets newspapers. Apparently he has access to what both reasoned and
unreasoned statements that are made. Consequently, I felt that it
would be useful, if anything, that he be allowed a chance for this. I
haven’t stated this to anybody, I don’t think, because there were a lot
of other things that I could not evaluate. I’m not in a position to
evaluate the legal or other reasons that might not be useful.
Mr. SPECTER. But with respect to his mental status, would it have been
your expectation prior to the time that the polygraph examination
started that it would have been beneficial rather than harmful to have
it conducted?
Dr. BEAVERS. If anything, the odds are good that it actually wouldn’t
do much one way or the other in my opinion, but the feeling of getting
out the catharsis or the getting his story before the people that he
has felt, for example, including the State, that were involved in
some kind of action against people he cared for, because they assumed
erroneously there was some conspiracy, then this might have some
beneficial effect.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your conclusion after being present during the
course of the polygraphic examination as to whether it had beneficial
effect or not?
Dr. BEAVERS. It’s hard to say. I think he held up rather remarkedly
well. At least, this is my opinion. I haven’t been present with
polygraph interrogations, but he certainly did not show undue stress,
either physical or emotional, and handled the questions better than
I thought he would. It did seem like he was getting, in a sense, his
day in court, which was by reasons of his, as I understand it, trial
procedure and presumed defense tactics not allowed him in the first
trial. This to me is what he kept coming back to during the course of
the examination, that he wanted to get his story out, and during the
times I have seen him.
Mr. SPECTER. Is it your interpretation that the consequence during the
course of this polygraph examination may have the ultimate consequence
of benefiting him?
Dr. BEAVERS. I think it could. I would suspect, if I tried to look and
see what would happen tomorrow, that he might be somewhat depressed.
This usually is what happens with somebody who has been looking forward
to something for a long, long time that’s going to be solving all of
his problems and it actually happens and nothing much is different, but
I think he will be depressed.
Mr. SPECTER. If he is depressed tomorrow, is that what you would think
would be a temporary state?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes; I think it.
Mr. SPECTER. So that that would not necessarily characterize the
longrun effects of this examination?
Dr. BEAVERS. That’s correct.
Mr. SPECTER. When you characterized a few moments ago his situation
as being fatigued, as we all were, do you think that he understood
all the questions which were being put to him and then answered them
responsively, or do you think that at some point his fatigue reached
such a point that he was not responding understandably to the questions?
Dr. BEAVERS. I was impressed with the skill of the man giving the test.
I felt the breaks were fairly well spaced. He didn’t show an excessive
amount of fatigue, in my view, except before the first break. He seemed
to show more fatigue then than he did later on.
Mr. SPECTER. Of course, you observed his interest in pursuing a great
many topics and the difficulty really in bringing the examination to a
close.
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes; which sort of fits with my feeling about the
depression a little bit in that he was aware that, well, “the show
is about over,” that his day in court was coming to a close, and I
suspect that the long-expected kinds of feelings probably were not as
great as he hoped for.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything else to add which you think would be
helpful to the President’s Commission in any way?
Dr. BEAVERS. I would only say that I think I’ll make it my business to
read up a little bit on some of the interrelationships between mental
illness and polygraph. When I state that I’m not an expert in this
area, it’s true. If by a combination of my readings, which I plan to
do, and my presence here and my previous and present views of Mr. Ruby,
I might be of help in forming an opinion, I will be available.
Mr. SPECTER. If you find through that course of study that you have
anything to add, I’m certain the Commission would be interested in
having any supplemental observations or conclusions on your part.
Mr. Fowler, do you have anything you would care to ask Dr. Beavers?
Mr. FOWLER. I am requesting Mr. Tonahill to ask a few questions, if you
have no objection, which is not in the way of cross-examination but
just by way of a further development.
Mr. SPECTER. All right, Mr. Tonahill.
Mr. TONAHILL. Dr. Beavers, during the trial of Jack Ruby for the murder
of Lee Harvey Oswald, Mr. Bill Alexander, the assistant district
attorney, sought and obtained a death sentence for Jack Ruby for the
murder of Oswald, and I along with other counsel sought far less—an
acquittal or at least a number of years. You have noted, have you not,
here that Mr. Ruby resents my presence. He says I’m not his attorney
and then asked me to do him favors and this, that, and the other,
and you have noticed he has tremendous faith and confidence in Mr.
Alexander, who obviously is here to, in the event of another trial—and
in the event of Mr. Fowler’s efforts and mine to obtain another trial
for him is successful—he is here to obtain information for the benefit
and use of whatever information he can get to get another death penalty.
Have you an opinion as to what goes on with reference to Ruby’s mental
illness that causes him to put faith in Mr. Alexander and no faith
in me. With reference to the question—is his mental state such that
he can’t aid and assist his lawyers in their efforts to appeal his
sentence and try to get him a new trial, and in his defense, and in the
management of his personal affairs, is he of such mental incompetency
that those things indicate to you that there is something in his mind,
something mentally ill about him that prevents him from realizing what
is best for him in his dealings with the prosecutor and his defense
attorneys, and in connection with managing his affairs and in helping
his defense attorneys in his ability, his capacity, his capabilities
of handling his personal affairs. What is your feeling about that
from what you’ve seen here today and what you’ve known from other
observations of Mr. Ruby?
Dr. BEAVERS. Maybe I can get it in pieces and parts of that—I don’t
know. I think the question of mental competency in the hearing that’s
going to be coming up in the future, at least from what I read in the
newspapers, and I think possibly rather than an off-the-cuff answer,
you may have to sort of settle for a statement that I made concerning
his mental illness, because I don’t do a whole lot of legal work,
and I would be quite cautious in making a statement concerning the
specific legal questions about competency for affairs until I got more
acquainted with this particular statute.
In other words, if you’re asking me a question about his mental status
and the mental illness, maybe I can make some comments.
Mr. TONAHILL. Well, I was trying to do it, but I wanted to give you
a little range and you could pinpoint yourself down to such as the
episodes here today between the relationship of his own lawyers and his
apparent partiality to Mr. Alexander here.
Dr. BEAVERS. This is what I referred to earlier, and I will be glad to
amplify it a bit. On the face of it, it seems to me that as far as an
awareness and appreciation of reality, there was this jeopardy—that
some of the behavior that he had toward Mr. Alexander as far as wanting
him very definitely to be in the room when he made certain damaging
statements concerning the amount of premeditation—this would not be
the actions of a wise and prudent man in my opinion. I think it does
fit more clearly with his previously stated delusional material to
me, that in fact there is a considerable body of people, the district
attorney’s office and district attorneys included, who do feel that
he is a part of a conspiracy, and that in fact either past, present
and/or future actions toward loved ones and toward members of his race
are going to be taken against these people because of this presumed
conspiracy. If this were the case, then it would make extremely good
sense that he would want Mr. Alexander here, and he would want him here
very definitely because he, instead of being wise and prudent in the
defense of his presumed safety and welfare at a future trial, he is
much more concerned with getting the truth out so that a whole host of
terrible things won’t happen.
Now, in reference to his activities toward you [referring to Mr.
Tonahill], the ambivalence we talked about was beautifully illustrated.
He begins by reading you out, by firing you in a sense, and then later
on in the middle of the activities he begins to have a markedly warm
attitude toward you and begins to refer to you as, I think, “Joe,”
once again. A reverse I may have noticed of this, of two or three
changes back and forth, but they were both distinctly and clearly
expressed, which has been my experience and also my opinion based on
working with people who have this kind of a delusional system, that
they show consistently, that is, with somebody who is related to them
very closely—you’re going to catch hell and then you’re going to be
responded to in an effort of bringing you back. In other words, I think
there is a probability that the reasons for relating warmly to the
district attorney’s representative and ambivalently toward you are as I
have stated, and very slightly different from one another.
Mr. TONAHILL. In his present mental state, do you feel he is capable
of conferring with Mr. Fowler and me and Mr. Burleson and aiding and
assisting us in an appellate effort in his behalf in reference to his
mental capacity?
Dr. BEAVERS. This entails two questions—one, his mental state, and two,
how much in fact is involved in aiding you in this appeal.
Now, to the first one, I hope and am reasonably confident of the
opinion I have given of this present mental illness at this time. As
to the latter, I have sort of opinions off-the-cuff from everything
that he needs to be pretty savvy and help you out, to the fact that it
doesn’t make any difference at all as to whether he can talk or not in
terms of an appeal, so I don’t know, because I don’t know No. 2.
Mr. TONAHILL. You and Dr. Holbrook, Dr. John Holbrook, who has examined
him, and Dr. Stubblefield who has examined him, and Dr. West who has
examined him, all four psychiatrists and outstanding men——
Dr. BEAVERS. And Dr. Tanay.
Mr. TONAHILL. And Dr. Tanay—five. Is it uniform agreement among
you five gentlemen that Jack Ruby is mentally ill and suffers with
psychotic delusions?
Dr. BEAVERS. The last time I talked to the other four gentlemen you
have just mentioned, their opinion was the same as my own. I couldn’t
state if anybody changed their mind. Dr. Tanay, following his visit
here, and I had lunch together and discussed the case. At the time
that we talked to the judge, Dr. Stubblefield and I, and then some 2
weeks later, shared our views, and they were in reasonably consistent
agreement. There was no disparity to speak of. Dr. West, I talked to by
telephone about 2 weeks ago, I believe.
Do you remember when that was, Mr. Fowler?
Mr. FOWLER. I think perhaps that would be a month ago, Dr. Beavers, or
somewhere thereabouts.
Dr. BEAVERS. Well, it was after I came back from vacation. At any rate,
between 2 weeks and a month ago, I believe, and his view was that this
man was mentally ill, and further than that, that he was pretty much as
I have described him here.
Mr. TONAHILL. And there have been instances where he rammed his head
into the wall and then tried to get his finger up in the light socket,
and then tried to rip the seam out of his trousers to kill himself, you
felt he was suicidal and should be protected from that effort, and all
of you agreed on that, I believe?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes. It really wasn’t based on those actions as much as,
I think, the depression that I saw initially, which has cleared up
somewhat as he has gotten more delusionary.
Mr. TONAHILL. You all felt that he should be out of jail and in a
mental hospital where he could get adequate mental care and mental
treatment, from psychiatric care and therapy medications?
Dr. BEAVERS. Yes; I thought this and this was the recommendation of the
other doctors that saw him.
Mr. TONAHILL. That would be Dr. Stubblefield, Dr. Holbrook, Dr. West,
and Dr. Tanay?
Dr. BEAVERS. I’m not sure about Dr. Tanay. I don’t know that I heard
him state that specific thing. I do know that the recommendation of Dr.
Holbrook and Dr. Stubblefield and myself, and further that Dr. West,
made the same recommendation. I do feel that we had two problems. One
was security as well as medical care. I feel like maybe I was perhaps
a little bit more concerned about this than maybe some of the other
specialists; I don’t know. This just happened to be my own view, that
I was not only concerned about this man, hopefully finding a place for
hospitalization, but that it would have to be a place where he had
adequate security from without as well as any idea of suicide.
Mr. TONAHILL. Is there anything unusual about a person who is mentally
ill and of unsound mind, still possessing keen memory faculties and
being able to recall things accurately and clearly as well as being
able to give responsive answers and to be in touch with reality?
Dr. BEAVERS. Oh, I would say that many people of unsound mind are
deteriorated enough that they do not have adequate memory. Early
in the course of many mental illnesses a lot of the faculties,
including memory, are preserved, so that this in itself I don’t think
would—because he has an apparently good memory would not mean that he
is of sound mind.
Mr. TONAHILL. That’s what I mean—that there’s nothing unusual about the
fact that he could still be of unsound mind and still have good recall
and good response to the questions asked by the polygraph operator?
Dr. BEAVERS. I’m a little hung up on the term “unusual,” because to
me, this is a statistical matter when you put it in that phrase, and
then you would be talking about what percentage of people do and what
percentage of people don’t.
Mr. TONAHILL. I don’t mean to do that.
I meant to ask you specifically, can Jack Ruby be of unsound mind,
not know right from wrong, appreciate the nature and quality of his
actions, and still have a keen memory, a good memory, and give clear
response to questions that appear to place him in touch with reality?
Dr. BEAVERS. In my opinion this is possible for a person.
Mr. TONAHILL. Is it reasonably probable from the standpoint of medical
certainty in your profession?
Dr. BEAVERS. I think so. You have included a question that I find it
very difficult to answer—this business of right and wrong.
Mr. TONAHILL. Yes.
Dr. BEAVERS. I stated my opinion to the Dallas Criminal Bar Association
concerning this particular phraseology, and you asked it inclusive, in
terms of several things?
Mr. TONAHILL. Well, with Mr. Alexander’s help, we’re going to eliminate
that from the criminal test for insanity in criminal law in Texas.