SUBJECT : Competence of Defendant Rudolf Hess
TO : General Secretary, International Military Tribunal.
1. In compliance with the Tribunal’s request, the following facts and
studied opinions are submitted with respect to the competence of Rudolf
Hess, based on my continual tests and observations from October 1945 to
the present time, in the capacity of prison psychologist:
2. _Amnesia at beginning of trial._ There can be no doubt that Hess was
in a state of virtually complete amnesia at the beginning of the trial.
The opinions of the psychiatric commissions in this regard and with
respect to his sanity have only been substantiated by prolonged
subsequent observation.
3. _Recovery._ On the day of the special hearing in his case, 30
November 1945, Rudolf Hess did, in fact, recover his memory. The cause
of his sudden recovery is an academic question, but the following event
probably played a part: Just before the hearing I told Hess (as a
challenge) that he might be considered incompetent at that time and
excluded from the proceedings, but I would sometimes see him in his
cell. Hess seemed startled and said he thought he was competent. Then he
gave his declaration of malingering in court, apparently as a
face-saving device. In later conversations he admitted to me that he had
not been malingering, and that he knew he had lost his memory twice in
England. During the months of December 1945, and January 1946, his
memory was quite in order.
4. _Relapse._ At the end of January I began to notice the beginnings of
memory failure. This increased progressively during February, until he
returned to a state of virtually complete amnesia again about the
beginning of March, and he has remained in that state ever since. (At
the beginning of relapse, Hess expressed anxiety over it, saying that no
one would believe him this time after he had said he had faked his
amnesia the first time.) The amnesia is progressive, each day’s events
being quickly forgotten. At present his memory span is about one-half
day, and his apprehension span has dropped from 7 to 4 digits repeated
correctly immediately after hearing.
5. _Competence and sanity._ I have read the application of Dr. Seidl
both in German and in English, and wish to make the following comment:
_a._ Lay discussion of psychiatric concepts does not help throw any
light on this case, because psychiatrists themselves are not in
agreement on the definition of terms like “psychopathic constitution”,
“hysterical reaction”, etc., and these terms have entirely different
meanings in English and German usage.
_b._ The psychiatric commissions have agreed, and my further
observations have confirmed, that Hess is _not_ insane (in the legal
sense of being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or realizing
the consequences of his acts).
_c._ Hess did recover his memory for a sufficient period of time (2-3
months) to give his counsel ample cooperation in the preparation of his
defense. If he failed to do so, it was the result of a negativistic
personality peculiarity, which I have also observed, and not
incompetence.
_d._ There has been no indication in his case history or present
behavior that he was insane at the time of the activities for which he
has been indicted. His behavior throughout the trial has also shown
sufficient insight and reason to dispel any doubts about his sanity. (He
may have gone through a psychotic episode in England, but that in no way
destroys the validity of the previous two statements. He has exhibited
signs of a “persecution complex” here too, but these have not been of
psychotic proportions.)
_e._ In my opinion, another examination by a psychiatric commission at
this time would not throw any further light on the case, because the
clinical picture is the same and the conclusions would necessarily be
the same as those of the original psychiatric commissions, to wit: Hess
is not insane but suffering from hysterical amnesia. I have discussed
this case with the present prison psychiatrist, Lt. Col. Dunn, who has
recently examined Hess, and he is also of the opinion that Hess’s
present mental state is apparently the same as that indicated in the
original psychiatric reports, which he has read.
/s/ G. M. GILBERT, Ph.D.
Prison Psychologist
-----
[18] This report was referred to Counsel for Defendant Hess by order of
the Tribunal, 20 August 1946, in reference to the motion of 2 August
1946 on behalf of the defendant. This motion, which reviewed at length
the previous examinations and psychiatric history of Defendant Hess, was
a request “to subject the Defendant Hess once more . . . to an
examination by psychiatric experts with regard to his ability to stand
trial and his soundness of mind.”