Content uploaded by Felicia Flores
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Felicia Flores on Jan 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR.: A PSYCHO-HISTORICAL CASE STUDY
A dissertation presented to
the Faculty of Saybrook University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Psychology
by
Felicia M. Flores
Oakland, California
September 2015
© 2015 by Felicia M. Flores
Approval of the Dissertation
JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR.: A PSYCHO-HISTORICAL CASE STUDY
This dissertation by Felicia M. Flores has been approved by the committee members be-
low, who recommend it be accepted by the faculty of Saybrook University in partial ful-
fillment of the requirements for the degree of:
Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology
Dissertation Committee:
___________________________________ ________________________
Robert McAndrews, Ph.D., Chair Date
___________________________________ ________________________
Eric Willmarth, Ph.D. Date
___________________________________ ________________________
Joshua Schwartz, Ph.D. Date
!ii
Abstract
JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR.: A PSYCHO-HISTORICAL CASE STUDY
Felicia M. Flores
Saybrook University
The purpose of this dissertation was to gather data using an archival case study
method examining the past and present psychopathological status of John W. Hinckley,
Jr., attempted assassin of Ronald Reagan, in order to present a comprehensive record.
Few writings examining the psyche of John Hinckley exist, and none include a compre-
hensive profile from birth through the present.
Attention was directed to Hinckley’s varied levels of candor and deceit evidenced
in clinical and interpersonal interactions, personal writings, interviews, and creative
works. The impact of Mr. Hinckley's status of notoriety as it has affected his process in
the mental healthcare system has been examined, and comparisons have been drawn be-
tween his particular case and the cases of others also found not guilty by reason of insani-
ty and of those found guilty of similar crimes with the goals of gaining notoriety and re-
ceiving attention but who have had far different outcomes with regard to punishment and
treatment. His case was compared to the cases of other attempted assassins including
Arthur Bremer, Lynette Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore, revealing far more differences
than similarities in motivations and outcomes. Additionally, attention was paid to the in-
dividuals Hinckley has expressed as having been influential in his processes including
!iii
John Lennon, The Beatles, and Travis Bickle, from the film, Taxi Driver. Ultimately, the
comprehensive record of the life of John W. Hinckley, Jr., from the earliest recorded ac-
counts of his life through the present, reveals that the commonly accepted story of the
Reagan assassination attempt (that Hinckley committed the act to impress Jodie Foster)
reflects merely a small part of Hinckley’s motivation, and that the greater impetus for his
actions was more likely a need to be famous propelled by his narcissistic personality dis-
order. This dissertation also casts doubt on the insanity ruling in this case.
In addition to its historical significance, this case study importantly displays the
disparity in punishment and treatment of wealthy!defendants with excellent family sup-
port compared to that of those who lack such support.
!iv
!ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to all of the friends, acquaintances, random
strangers, shop keepers, bartenders, students, family members (especially my girls -
Mairi, Chandler, and Sophie), and my gentleman sweetheart, Geoffrey, who have all very
patiently and generously listened to me ramble on about John W. Hinckley, Jr., when they
were really quite tired of hearing about the case.
!iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my committee members; Robert McAndrews, Ph.D.,
Joshua Schwartz, Ph.D., and Eric Willmarth, Ph.D., for their immeasurable assistance,
generous encouragement, and most of all, their palpable enthusiasm for my selected topic
of study. All are extraordinary men, with exceptional vision and conceptualization of a
beautiful future for Saybrook and humanity.
I would also like to acknowledge Joanne McAllister, Ph.D., for her guidance,
leadership, and encouragement throughout my time at Saybrook, especially when I was
terribly unsure of my direction. Without her compassionate guidance and leadership, my
success at Saybrook would have been terribly limited.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the late Eugene Taylor, Ph.D., for his
encouragement and his incredible insights about the intrinsic beauty and simplicity of the
writing process, and for teaching me, through word and example, how to pursue and
present an historical case study - thoroughly, seamlessly, and to the bitter end.
!iv
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 ........................................................................................
Research Questions 1 ..................................................................................................
Purpose Statement 1 ...................................................................................................
Problem Statement 3 ...................................................................................................
Rationale of Research 8 ..............................................................................................
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 10 ...........................................................................
Introduction 10 ...........................................................................................................
The League of (would be) Assassins 11 .....................................................................
Arthur Bremer 11 ............................................................................................
Sara Jane Moore 18 ........................................................................................
Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme 26 .......................................................................
Mark David Chapman 29 ...............................................................................
Franklin Frye 32 .............................................................................................
St. Elizabeths 35 .............................................................................................
Andrea Yates 37 ..............................................................................................
Conclusion 51 .............................................................................................................
CHAPTER 3: METHOD 53 ...................................................................................................
Rationale of the Historical Archival Case Study Method 53 ......................................
Participants 59 ............................................................................................................
Design and Materials 59 .............................................................................................
Procedure 60 ...............................................................................................................
Data Analysis Methods 60 ..........................................................................................
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS/FINDINGS 62 ...............................................................................
Introduction 62 ...........................................................................................................
Origins 62 ...................................................................................................................
Mother 62 .......................................................................................................
Father 62 .........................................................................................................
Early Life 64 ...............................................................................................................
The Teenaged Years 69 ...............................................................................................
Texas Tech 72 .............................................................................................................
Taxi Driver 79 .............................................................................................................
New Haven 81 ............................................................................................................
!v
A Critical Six Months 84 ............................................................................................
The Act and the Aftermath 96 .....................................................................................
The Trial 110 ...............................................................................................................
Early Days at St. Elizabeths 118 .................................................................................
The mid-1980s 127 .....................................................................................................
The 1990s 130 ............................................................................................................
The 2000s 132 ............................................................................................................
Later Family Relationships 135 ..................................................................................
Going Forward 143 .....................................................................................................
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 152 ..........................................................................................
Introduction 152 .........................................................................................................
Research Question One 153 .......................................................................................
Research Question Two 157 .......................................................................................
On dangerousness 157 ....................................................................................
Release and family oversight 160 ...................................................................
Conclusion 163 ...............................................................................................
Research Question Three 164 .....................................................................................
Arthur Bremer 165 ..........................................................................................
Mark David Chapman 166 .............................................................................
Moore and Fromme 168 .................................................................................
Research Question Four 169 .......................................................................................
Research Question Five 171 .......................................................................................
Family relationships 171 ................................................................................
Self-Identity 180 .............................................................................................
The fifth Beatle 182 ........................................................................................
Taxi Driver 184 ...............................................................................................
Conclusion 189 ...............................................................................................
Recommendations for Further Research 192 .............................................................
REFERENCES 195 ................................................................................................................
APPENDICES 204 .................................................................................................................
A. SIRB Application 204 ............................................................................................
!vi
!1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Research Questions
Did John W. Hinckley, Jr., truly suffer from a mental disorder at the time of his
assassination attempt on former President Ronald Reagan that prevented him from being
responsible for his actions on March 30, 1981? What were the possible factors existent in
his early life that influenced his homicidal endeavors; and since his admittance to St.
Elizabeth's Mental Hospital in 1982, what indications of full or partial remission of his
pathological symptoms have (or have not) indicated the extent to which he has been and
will continue to be able (or unable) to assume responsibility for himself under the current
stipulations of incrementally increasing periods of conditional release, eventually leading
to full, largely unsupervised permanent convalescent leave?
Further, how does the case of John W. Hinckley, Jr., compare to that of other
assassins/would-be assassins (particularly to the cases of Arthur Bremer, attempted
assassin of Governor George Wallace, and Mark David Chapman, assassin of John
Lennon) who committed crimes with similar aspirations of notoriety, but who were found
guilty of their crimes; and how might he have been influenced, directly or indirectly, by
Bremer and Chapman? Also, how does the case of John Hinckley compare to those of
other individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity?
The ultimate question, however, is: Who is John Warnock Hinckley, Jr. - past,
present, and future - and how can this portrait be determined?
Purpose Statement
!2
The purpose of this psycho-historical archival case study dissertation was to
determine how symptoms of psychopathology, interpretations of outside influences,
presentation of transparency versus deceit, issues around enablement, and feelings of
entitlement have (or have not) informed the clinical presentations, interpersonal
interactions, and known creative works of John W. Hinckley, Jr., prior to and since his
confinement to St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital. As a person found not guilty by reason of
insanity (NGRI) by a jury of his peers, Mr. Hinckley's mental health status evaluations,
both pre- and post-confinement, have been made somewhat accessible to the public.
While Mr. Hinckley has indicated evidence of progress since his initial admission,
evaluative reports suggest that he may not always be the compliant patient he purports
himself to be. In terms of the larger paradigm concerning the typical NGRI patient, Mr.
Hinckley has not necessarily progressed through the mental healthcare system in a way
that is consistent with the experiences of others, who on average spend a mere three,
versus his now 34, years in confinement (Green & Heilbrun, 2011, p. 216). This disparity
is somewhat linked to Mr. Hinckley's notoriety, to his clinical presentation, and to a
combination of both factors. Examination of his case is relevant to the study of all people
found NGRI, or at the very least, to the NGRI individuals who commit crimes with the
specific goal of fame via infamy. Additionally, the case of Mr. Hinckley is of particular
interest when compared to and contrasted with cases of others who have committed
similar crimes, but have plead guilty or been found guilty by a legal standard in a court of
law. This dissertation compared and contrasted the case of Mark David Chapman, who
murdered John Lennon with similar motives to Mr. Hinckley, and the cases of Arthur
!3
Bremer, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, and Sarah Jane Moore who, along with Hinckley,
and Bremer, hold the dubious distinction of being living attempted assassins of political
figures in the United States who have been released, or who (in Hinckley’s case) have a
form of release pending. Other instances of NGRI cases, including that of Andrea Yates,
are compared to the case of Mr. Hinckley as well. Further, this dissertation examined the
cases of others who have been patients at St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital who have had
entirely different experiences: Those who have been held unwittingly and unwillingly for
periods longer than should have been expected.
Problem Statement
I dare say that not one psychiatrist who has analyzed me knows any
more about me than the average person on the street who has read
about me in the newspapers. Psychiatry is a guessing game and I do
my best to keep the fools guessing about me. They will never know the
true John Hinckley. Only I fully understand myself. (J. W. Hinckley,
1987)
In 1982, following the attempted assassination of then-President, Ronald Reagan,
John Hinckley, Jr., was found not guilty by reason of insanity by a jury of his peers. At
that time, the jury determined that due to mental defect or disorder, Hinckley was not
responsible for his actions that critically wounded the president and three other
individuals in the presidential entourage, based upon the fact that he met one of the two
criteria required for determining whether or not he met the legal standard of insanity.
During his trial in 1982, the federal standard of insanity would be met if Mr. Hinckley's
defense team could prove that at the exact moment the offenses were committed,
Hinckley was acting on either an irresistible impulse, or that in that specific moment,
!4
lacked the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. When he was tried, the burden
of proof was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hinckley
was not insane, and that he acted with premeditation and forethought. The prosecution
was not successful, and Mr. Hinckley was sent to St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital in
Washington, D.C., for an undetermined length of time, with his release contingent on his
recovery and the court’s determination of him posing a low risk of danger (Clarke, 1990).
Abraham Maslow (1987) contended there are certain people who can be recognized
as “crippled spirits.” These individuals, due to a myriad of personal issues, including a
sense of unfulfilled entitlement, serious mental defect, personality disorder, troubled
interpersonal relationships, and so on, are unable to begin aspiring to true self-
actualization (an alignment of their values and beliefs about self, other, and the world
with regard to their daily activities and goals), as their emotional and psychological
development is stunted by aforementioned issues. Carl Rogers contradicted Maslow's
theory with his concept of individuals as being “primed,” or having an “innate striving,”
to which they are attuned, positioning themselves for achievement (Myers, 2010, p. 565).
The presumption of Rogers’ theory is essentially that all individuals wish for what might
be considered success (materially, psychologically, emotionally, etc.) according to
accepted standards of the modern Western world. This dissertation explored whether Mr.
Hinckley has exhibited evidence of success or striving behaviors through the examination
of available materials.
According to the most recent comprehensive forensic psychiatric risk assessment
conducted at the request of the court in 2015, Mr. Hinckley has indeed successfully
!5
navigated the Washington, D.C. mental hospital he has called home for the past 34 years,
and that he has been largely successful during his monthly 17-day visits to his mother’s
home in Williamsburg, Virginia. This was expressed by James Patterson, M.D., a
psychiatrist for the federal government, who collected evaluative materials and conducted
interviews for the hearings beginning on April 22, 2015, to determine Hinckley’s
suitability for permanent convalescent leave. When admitted to St. Elizabeths in 1982,
John Hinckley was initially diagnosed with major depressive disorder, psychotic disorder
not otherwise specified (NOS), and narcissistic personality disorder. Currently, his
clinicians state that his major depressive and psychotic disorders are in complete
remission, but his narcissistic personality disorder remains clinically significant, though
his symptoms have become attenuated (Montalbano, 2011, p. 3). His years at St.
Elizabeths Mental Hospital have been good overall, but have been colored by a few
episodes of questionable behavior. In 1987, for example, hospital staff believed he was
completely free of his obsession with actor, Jodie Foster, and that he had been for a
period of over three years. A court ordered search of Mr. Hinckley's room led to the
discovery of 57 pieces of Jodie Foster-related contraband, mostly photographs that had
been ripped from magazines and newspapers (Montalbano, 2011, p. 22).
Two incidences of questionable actions were noted involving female staff
members at St. Elizabeths as well. In one instance, Mr. Hinckley became inappropriately
fixated on a staff pharmacist. When he was advised to cease his unannounced visits to
her, he responded by staring her down in the hospital corridors each and every time he
subsequently saw her. In another instance, he feigned toothaches in order to visit a
!6
female dental intern, and hacked her personal Facebook account in order to view her
private pictures on a hospital computer, falsely claiming she had "invited" him to do so
(Montalbano, 2011, p. 28). More recently, Hinckley falsely reported his whereabouts in
itineraries on three known occasions. Secret Service agents who occasionally follow him
were able to determine these inconsistencies when comparing their notes to hospital
records.
These questionable instances, however, have been the exception to Mr. Hinckley's
otherwise sterling record of patient compliance. He has responded to treatment well. So
well, in fact, that he has been allowed visits to the home of his mother in Williamsburg,
Virginia, since 2006. During these visits, he is required to be with his now 90-year-old
mother, Jo Ann Hinckley, at all times, except for very brief periods during which he must
carry a cellular phone with a GPS tracking device. He is shadowed by the secret service
at random unannounced intervals, although these same agents have expressed continuing
concerns about episodes in which he has falsified his whereabouts in reporting to St.
Elizabeths.
Other individuals found guilty of similar crimes or not guilty by reason of insanity
have faced fewer obstacles to freedom, due in large part to Hinckley’s notoriety, but not
exclusively. Hinckley does still present with narcissistic personality disorder, and though
many treating and evaluating clinicians may not agree, psychiatrists Patterson and
Phillips (now deceased) have maintained in their evaluative reports throughout the years
that it was this disorder - not his major depressive disorder or psychotic disorder NOS -
that caused Hinckley to commit his crimes. While Hinckley could have faced death, had
!7
he been found guilty of treason, a charge that could have been levied in light of him
having attempted to assassinate a sitting president, he was fortunate that his defense team
was successful in mounting the not guilty by reason of insanity defense. This victory for
him certainly spared his life, but had the case been treated like that of other attempted
assassins also not charged with treason, the likelihood is high that Hinckley would be a
free person. To quote Ewing and McCann, (2006): “As the Hinckley case itself
illustrates, even where a criminal defendant does manage to obtain a verdict of not guilty
by reason of insanity, in many cases it may be a pyrrhic victory” (p. 100). Despite having
been confined to St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital instead of prison, Hinckley has been
forced to serve far more time than others in similar cases who were found guilty of their
crimes.
Having been subject to a media ban in the mid-1980s, as a result of his relentless
seeking of notoriety through media channels in the first years that followed his
commitment, the relative obscurity Hinckley has experienced since that time could not
have been foreseen by any American with a television or newspaper in the home some 34
plus years ago. In the days, weeks, and months that followed his failed assassination
attempt of then-President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, John W. Hinckley, Jr.,
became a household name. His sensational trial brought forth issues of over-
identification and/or unhealthy interest in actor, Jodie Foster, in John Lennon and the
Beatles, in Lennon assassin, Mark Davis Chapman, and in the character, Travis Bickle,
portrayed by Robert DeNiro in the film, Taxi Driver (Lewis, 1990). Media has long
focused on Hinckley as a loner who specifically shot the president to impress Jodie
!8
Foster. This dissertation sought to highlight the factors that dispel this widely accepted
cultural notion. While Hinckley did have an unhealthy interest on Foster, his motivations
were far more complex and deeply rooted. All influencing factors gleaned from the
literature are discussed in relation to Hinckley's actions from 1981 through the present.
!9
Rationale of Research
The purpose of this psycho-historical archival case study research was to increase
understanding about the fundamental nature of John W. Hinckley, Jr., specifically as it
relates to his continued diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. This research more
specifically sought to examine how symptoms of psychopathology, interpretations of
outside influences, issues around enablement, and feelings of entitlement have (or have
not) informed the clinical presentations, interpersonal interactions, and creative works of
John Hinckley, Jr., throughout his life. As Mr. Hinckley has made substantial progress
while at St. Elizabeths, evident in evaluative reports, on-going concerns of federal
prosecutors and the judge assigned this to case surrounding the ability of his clinical team
to accurately assess him, based on his own on-going tactics of deception, have been of
continued concern. This dissertation research meta-analyzed those evaluative reports and
determined if patterns exist around Mr. Hinckley's candor and substantiation of his
clinical presentation.
Considering the larger paradigm that surrounds the typical NGRI patient, this
research has examined why Mr. Hinckley progressed so dramatically differently than
other patients who spend a average of three, versus his now 34, years in confinement
(Green & Heilbrun, 2011, p. 216). While Hinckley's notoriety is a contributing factor,
this research examined this disparity comparing his clinical presentation, his notoriety,
his motivations, and/or a combination of all three, to other cases similar to his. The
examination of the case of Mr. Hinckley is deeply significant when compared to other
cases in which individuals have committed similar crimes but have been found guilty (as
!10
opposed to not guilty by reason of insanity), particularly the cases of Arthur Bremer,
Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore, and Mark David Chapman, when other
attempted assassins had seemingly similar motivations and/or psychopathological
presentations. Comparisons to other patients at St. Elizabeths hospital and their treatment
are featured in this dissertation in order to establish the special treatment Mr. Hinckley
has received during his treatment stay. This research evaluated the accuracy of the
Hinckley insanity finding and evaluates the role of an excellent defense, and examined
Hinckley as a particularly masterfully manipulative individual, who, through a perfect
elixir of deception and candor, was able to shift the NGRI paradigm in his case. In
addition, the ultimate goal of this dissertation was to create a holistic portrait of the John
Hinckley, Jr., case in order to glean insight from its entirety, uncovering previously
unexplored insights into his specific case.
!11
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
Immediately following the assassination attempt on March 30, 1981, media
coverage of the shooter, who was quickly learned to be John W. Hinckley, Jr., was
intense, and remained so throughout the trial that followed. Through the early 1980s,
Hinckley himself corresponded with various media sources until a gag order was imposed
on him in late 1983. Since that time, however, the Hinckley case has been written about
very little compared to more salacious, notorious cases. Two books of considerable merit
were written about Hinckley: On Being Mad or Merely Angry (Clarke, 1990) and The
Insanity Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. (Low, Jeffries, & Bonnie, 1986). However, because
of their respective years of publication, neither offers a full, comprehensive view of the
life John Hinckley has led for the past 34 years in relation to his years prior to that time.
An examination of the case study literature surrounding similar cases to Hinckley's has
provided varied perspectives on others held in involuntary hospital commitments, on
those found guilty of attempting to assassinate a political figure who are still living, and
on those who have influenced Hinckley. These comparative cases lend insight to the
uniqueness of the Hinckley case as anomalous, yet inform various aspects of Mr.
Hinckley’s experiences and processes. This literature review examines the cases of other
living individuals who have attempted to assassinate political figures including Arthur
Bremer, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore as well as the case of Mark
David Chapman and the case of Franklin Frye, a fellow patient at St. Elizabeths Mental
Hospital. The noted NGRI case of Andrea Yates is presented for comparative analysis as
!12
well. Conditions at St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital, in relation to patient safety and
supervision, are also presented.
The League of (would be) Assassins
Currently in the United States, a group of four individuals bound by infamy of a
shared nature exists. Four living people - John Hinckley, Jr., Arthur Bremer, Lynette
“Squeaky” Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore - have attempted to assassinate political
figures, all unsuccessfully. At present, Hinckley, Bremer, and Fromme are all in their 60s,
and Sara Jane Moore is in her mid-80s. All except Hinckley were found guilty, as
opposed to not guilty by reason of insanity; yet, all are free from involuntary confinement
except Hinckley. Like Hinckley, all were subject to a media swarm in the days, weeks,
and months following their respective assassination attempts that continued through their
trials. With Lynette Fromme as the exception, like Hinckley, after a period of time,
Bremer and Moore settled into incarceration and little was written about them, though
they were historically referenced with regular frequency. Fromme, Bremer, and Moore all
currently live (mostly) out of the public eye, and none have committed further offenses.
Outside of the parameters imposed by the normal course of parole, none have faced the
constraints and considerations for release that Mr. Hinckley is currently bound by and
will continue to face as part of his permanent release to the status of full convalescent
leave.
Arthur Bremer.
"...to do SOMETHING BOLD AND DRAMATIC , FORCEFULL & DYNAMIC, A
STATEMENT of my manhood for the world to see."
From An Assassin’s Diary (Bremer, 1973)
!13
Arthur Bremer, like John Hinckley, Jr., is another nearly forgotten, would-be
assassin in American history. Bremer grew up a seemingly normal child who became
noticeably shy and withdrawn as his high school years came to a close (American
Experience, 2000; Bremer, 1973). His family life was somewhat dysfunctional, but no
reports exist that suggest he was subject to physical or sexual abuse or severe neglect. He
had four siblings who all grew up to be functional adults. His parents, however, had an
unfortunate relational dynamic that likely played a role in his lack of understanding as to
what a healthy adult romantic relationship could be. Further, his mother was known to be
an overbearing woman who became overly consumed with him as he developed.
A social worker described Bremer’s mother, Sylvia, as a suspicious
withdrawn woman who had been raised in an orphanage after her
mother had abandoned her. Consumed by the fears that grew out of
that experience, she trusted no one, including her husband. Bremer’s
father, Bill, relied on the bottle to insulate himself from the hostile
outbursts that regularly punctuated the silences of the household. Mr.
Bremer never got mean when he drank; he never mistreated his
children. He just got quiet. That was what he was most of the time- a
benign non-entity who went to work, brought home his pay, often
skirmished with his wife, and sometimes slept in a chair. (Clarke,
1990, p. 86)
The social worker also believed that while Bremer received preferential treatment
to his siblings and was given care from his mother that was regimented and strictly bound
to a schedule, he did not receive much in the way of love and affection from her. With
his father being confined to drinking and sitting quietly in a chair, Bremer did not receive
healthy attention or affection from either parent, which could have positively informed
his development. As Arthur became an adolescent, Sylvia Bremer escalated her
!14
dysfunctional way of parenting and took an unhealthy fascination in his bodily functions
and sexuality, failing to acknowledge that her son was becoming a young man.
Bremer’s understanding of sex came from the sex comics he purchased
from mail-order houses and from his mother’s intrusive interest in his
intimate bodily functions. When asked how the facts of life were
explained to Arthur, his mother proudly replied, “He never asked and
he was always clean (meaning he never masturbated).” She never
encouraged him to date as he grew older, warning him that the
“oppressive odors of menstruating girls” in crowded high school
classrooms contributed to frequent headaches. When Bremer began his
senior year in high school, Sylvia was still checking his sheets and
keeping track of how often he changed his underwear, as if he were a
child. (Clarke, 1990, p. 87)
Having spent his formative years in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, following high
school, he found work there as a bus boy in a local restaurant; a job that John Hinckley,
Jr., would hold as well. He quit after customers and staff complained of his distant and
odd behavior. Often, he would giggle and talk to himself while performing his bussing
tasks. Bremer did, however, seem to have some insight regarding the way others
perceived him, even at that time. Later in his diary, he spoke of feelings of alienation and
being different that had pervaded since his school days. He expressed that
No English or History test was ever as hard, no math final exam ever
as difficult as waiting in a school lunch line alone, waiting to eat alone
& afterward reading alone in the auditorium while hundreds huddled
and gossiped and roared and laughted [sic] and staered [sic] at me, and
planned for the week and laughed and laughed. (Bremer, 1973)
Following his failure as a bus boy, Bremer found a job as a school janitor and had
his first romantic relationship with a 16-year-old girl named Joan Pemrich, who attended
the school at which he worked. While their first date, a museum visit and lunch, went
very well, their subsequent dates were confusing and frightening for her, mired by
!15
Bremer showing her pornographic images and speaking to her in a way that was best
defined as sexually graphic. Once Joan decided she wanted nothing to do with Bremer,
her mother threatened to call the police if he ever contacted her or came around their
house again.
Following this incident, Bremer began to keep a personal diary, which would later
be published and become known as, An Assassin’s Diary (Bremer, 1973). From the
pivotal point of Joan’s rejection, he waxed poetically about his need to impress her, and
to become known and famous. While he originally planned to assassinate then-president
Richard Nixon during the campaign season, he found Nixon too well-guarded to access,
and chose his opponent, George Wallace as his target, despite the fact that he recognized
Wallace’s less-than-famous position in contrast to Nixon’s. Bremer believed that despite
the fact that Wallace, due to his anti-integration related unpopularity and being viewed as
lesser than Nixon in terms of popular regard, could still be a suitable-enough target to
garner for him the notoriety he so desired (Bremer, 1973).
After trailing Wallace as far north as Canada, at a campaign rally in Laurel,
Maryland, on May 15, 1972, Bremer found himself in a position of easy access, and shot
Wallace with a .38-caliber revolver, paralyzing him and wounding three others in the
process: Nick Zarvos, a Secret Service agent; E.C. Dothard, an Alabama state trooper;
and Dora Thompson, a campaign volunteer. None were killed, and Bremer was not fired
upon, but wrestled to the ground by bystanders (American Experience, 2000; Greider,
1972).
Bremer was charged with four counts of assault with intent to murder by
!16
Maryland state authorities, and two federal charges: Interfering with the civil rights of a
candidate for public office, and assaulting a federal officer (regarding the secret service
agent; Greider; 1972). Bremer’s legal team, composed of public defenders, attempted an
insanity defense, but was unsuccessful. While the prosecution agreed that Bremer was
mentally ill at the time of the offense, they believed that he understood the unlawful
nature of his actions, but deliberately took them anyway. Lead prosecutor, Arthur
Marshall, expressed that Bremer, “knew he would be arrested...he knew he would be on
trial" (Greider, 1972). Bremer, unlike Hinckley, did not have an expensive, privately
funded legal team and/or team of experts, and was found guilty of attempted murder and
other charges after a brief five-day trial.
During his years of incarceration, Bremer never expressed remorse for his actions
or agreed to psychological evaluation. Although George Wallace personally wrote him
expressing forgiveness, love, and encouragement for him to accept Jesus Christ as his
personal savior prior to his death in 1998, Bremer never responded and never experienced
any known religious conversion. At his 1996 parole hearing, he referred to Wallace as a
”'segregationist dinosaur’ and [Bremer] suggested that people who tried to restrain him
were responsible for the shots that wounded the bystanders” (Roberts, 2007). He also
espoused a dire perspective on life outside of prison in modern America.
“Everyone is mean nowadays ... (We've) got teenagers running around
with drugs and machine guns, they never heard of me," he said. "They
never heard of the public figure in my case, and they couldn't care less.
I was in prison when they were born. The country kind of went to hell
in the last 24 years.” (Roberts, 2007)
Yet, according to Ruth Ogle, a program manager for the Maryland Parole
!17
Commission, "He was a model inmate. He never had an infraction the entire time he was
incarcerated” (Nuckols, 2007). Bremer worked a clerical job in the prison library
throughout most of his confinement and was reputed to have been exemplary in his
performance. Also, during his 2007 parole hearing, Bremer indicated that he was aware
of public perception and did not care to participate in dealings with the media, stating, "I
shy away from publicity. There’s nothing I could say, and if I did say something, it could
be interpreted the worst way possible against me” (Nuckols, 2007).
Despite his model behavior at the Maryland Correctional Institute in Hagerstown,
Bremer, like his younger self, was an eccentric man. Incarcerated at 21-years-old, he
refused psychological examination throughout his 35 years at the facility. When asked
about his long standing refusal for so much as an evaluation at his 1996 parole hearing,
He offered a rambling response when a hearing officer, Thomas
Pennewell, asked him about taking a psychological test.
"Now let's say this psychologist falls in love with me," Bremer replied,
according to a transcript. "He falls in love with me perfectly. He wants
to loan me $600,000. He wants me to marry his daughter. He wants me
to live in his house. He wants me to go into business with his father
and brother and all lovey dovey. He can't get over it. Then what's your
recommendation, Mr. Pennewell?"
"I don't know, sir," the hearing officer said. (Morse, 2007 p. 2)
Erratic statements and behavior were not confined to his parole hearings.
According to Morse (2007),
Indications of psychological instability persisted years after the shooting. George
Wallace Jr. said two FBI agents once described to him Bremer's reaction to a letter
the younger Wallace had sent in the early 1990s. "He jumped up on the bars in the
cell and made noises like a monkey," Wallace said. (p. 2)
!18
In 1998, Patricia Cushwa, chairman of the Maryland Parole Commission, said
that, “Bremer was first eligible for parole in 1985 but waited 11 years before seeking it --
apparently, because he did not want to discuss the case” (Richissin, 1998). While this
may have been in the case in 1985, Bremer was candid at his 1996 parole hearing about
his feelings surrounding his continued incarceration and his opinion of George Wallace.
In 1996, however, he met with Thomas Pennewell, a hearing officer
with the Maryland Parole Commission. After Pennewell recommended
against parole and then-chairman Paul Davis agreed, Bremer wrote his
letter to an appellate panel.
In it, he expresses disgust with Wallace's segregationist past and
criticized him and the parole board. He cited Pennewell's written
rejection of his parole petition, which said that to free Bremer would
"effectively proclaim an [sic] 'open hunting season' on" other
politicians. "They are extinct."
In Bremer's letter, dated Feb. 10, 1997, the would-be assassin replied:
"Mr. Pennewell took it upon himself to stand in front of my jail-house
door. His equating a segregationist with all politicos is inconceivable
to me. No 'open hunting season' exists on segregationist dinosaurs.
They are extinct, not endangered, by an act of God.” (Richissin, 1998)
Perhaps most interestingly, Bremer carefully followed the lives and careers of
Wallace and his three other victims through newspaper articles over the years. By 1996,
Bremer was prepared to express his opinions of George Wallace and his policies with no
remorse and little constraint, despite the fact that he was facing a parole board. While
other political attempted assassins have expressed remorse or, at the very least, relief in
not having succeeded, Bremer stands alone in his remorseless and defiant position.
During the hearing, he stated that Wallace,
continued to be chief executive of Alabama, but, whatever is his specific job title,
his full-time job was that of segregationist, and it was not benevolent segregation,
but a racial segregation of in your face, a "you get out of here, boy" type of
segregation. (Nuckols, 2007)
!19
In an interview with Newsweek, noted forensic psychiatrist, Park Dietz, expressed
concern about the release of Arthur Bremer in light of the fact that he received no
psychological treatment at any point during his prison sentence.
“In the absence of treatment, and where the original problem is one of
personality—which is what the testimony was in the Bremer case—
one does not expect for there to be improvement," Dietz says.
"However, research shows that as violent offenders age, the likelihood
of recidivism declines," he adds. "What's almost certain is that Bremer
will have a difficult time reintegrating himself into society. People who
have been locked up for decades, says Dietz, often "turn to their old
social mechanisms of coping: social withdrawal, isolating themselves,
figuring out whom to blame, building their anger and repeating
criminal acts.” (Skipp, 2007)
In that same interview, David Blumberg, chairman of the Maryland Parole
Commission, stated that, "I don't believe he will be a danger…But he will have to
acclimate to making decisions that he hasn't had to make since 1972” (Skipp, 2007).
Since his release in 2007, Bremer has not been apprehended for the commission
of a crime. Bremer’s original sentence of 63 years was later reduced to 53 years, and as a
result of his good behavior as a prisoner, he was released in November of 2007 after
serving 35 years. According to his parole officer, Bremer is doing well and works on a
farm in Cumberland, Maryland, to this day (Lennox, 2012).
Sara Jane Moore.
It was a kind of ultimate protest against the system. I did not want to
kill somebody, but there comes a point where the only way you can
make a statement is to pick up a gun. (Clarke, 2006, p.166)
Sara Jane Moore had no outward signs or history of mental illness when she
attempted to assassinate Gerald Ford on September 22, 1975 - a mere 17 days after
!20
Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme had wielded a gun in his direction. She was then a 45-year-
old mother who had been married five times and had four children. Her three eldest
children had been formally adopted by her mother who lived in her native state of West
Virginia, but her son, Frederic, who lived with her in California, was five years old when
she committed her offense. At that time, she was single - her marriage to her fifth
husband, Willard Carmel, a physician, had been annulled in 1972. Following the
annulment, Moore had moved to
San Francisco’s Mission District, in June 1974. There she became a member of
the radical underground, soaking up ideas that fed her desire for self-importance
and led her to make the decision to kill the president of the United States. (Spieler,
2005)
Prior to her move to the Mission District, she lived in Danville, California, where
other mothers living in her suburban enclave generally disliked her. This was due to her
overbearing personality. While her outward appearance and that of her family suggested
normalcy, the other stay-at-home mothers in her community ultimately rejected Moore.
It didn’t take long for mothers of other children Frederic’s age to
decide they didn’t want anything to do with her. The Danville Circle,
as one moms’ group was nicknamed, cut Moore out of their children’s
playgroups and their baby-sitting pool; they also left the Carmels out
of their adult social circle.
“She was well kept and attractive; it wasn’t that,” one neighbor
explained. “It’s that she barged in on your life as though you had
nothing to do but listen to her.” The final straw for this mother came
the morning that Moore “invited herself in without a thought to my
schedule . . . and just talked nonstop until I was late and had to
practically throw her out. She had no regard for anyone but herself.”
Neighbors liked Frederic, who would be reared by a foster family in
San Francisco after his mother’s arrest. “It was too bad about her little
boy,” explained another mom. “She dressed him up like an East Coast
!21
preppy doll, in short pants and knee-length socks. All the other kids
made fun of him. We welcomed that very polite young man, making
room for him when we could.” (Spieler, 2005).
Upon moving to the Mission District in 1974, Moore developed an interest in
radical politics. She became consumed with learning about the Symbionese Liberation
Army following the kidnapping of heiress, Patricia Hearst, which had taken place on
February 4 of that same year. She became a volunteer bookkeeper for People in Need,
the food distribution effort that was established by Randolph Hearst on February 19,
1974, in reaction to the demands of the Symbionese Liberation Army for the release of
his daughter, Patricia (American Experience, 2005). Moore quickly enmeshed herself in
the radical leftist community, and yet, within months, was targeted by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation as a potential informant. Even within the radical leftist community she
had become a part of, Moore stood out as an odd character in her own right. According
to Laskow (2015),
However much she was enjoying her new life as a left-leaning activist,
it seems that she pushed deeper into San Francisco's political scene in
part because the FBI asked her to. Her People In Need activities
caught the attention of agents, who recruited her as an informer: they
asked her to start attending the meetings of various leftist groups,
taking notes on who came, and befriending fractious elements. (She
wasn't paid for this work, but the bureau did pick up her expenses.)
Moore, Spieler says, had a "chameleon ability to charm everyone she
met," and soon she was both informing on the radical groups to the
FBI and confiding to the radicals she knew about the FBI's interest in
them. At one lefty hangout, she was even known as "the FBI Lady.”
Despite her self-propelled outing as “the FBI Lady,” Moore continued to enjoy
her self-imposed double agent status. Perhaps ironically, neither federal agents nor
radical leftists gave much credence to her knowledge of either side. While Moore was
!22
leaning towards an act of radicalism, no one on either side could have conceived of the
frumpy, 45-year-old mother of being capable of such an act. Sara Jane Moore was,
indeed, a complex character about whom much was readily known, but little was fully
understood. Prior to her move to the Mission District,
Sara Jane Moore was a Republican shortly before she flipped and
became a San Francisco Radical. She was a strong supporter of
Republican Senator George Murphy, an ultraconservative former song
and dance man whose best-known accomplishment during his six
years in Washington was having an always-full candy jar on his desk.
Sara Jane had been involved in the actor-candidate’s first campaign,
his election to the Senate in 1964.
It was during her five year-long [sic] divorce proceeding that Sara Jane
discovered another side of the political spectrum. It actually happened
when Patti Hearst was kidnapped and Sara Jane answered the plea of
Randolph Hearst to help find her. She volunteered as an accountant at
the food giveaway location, a large warehouse at China Basin on the
edge of San Francisco's ship yards [sic]. Hanging out with the wide-
range of people, from the extreme left to the conservative friends of
Hearst, radicalized Sara Jane. It all gets more complicated from there.
(Judd, 2009)
On September 22, 1974,
As President Ford exited a downtown hotel, Moore, standing in a crowd of
onlookers across the street, pointed her pistol at him. Just before she fired, a
civilian grabbed at the gun and deflected the shot. The bullet missed Ford but
slightly injured a bystander upon its ricochet off of the side of a building. The
civilian who immediately subdued Moore was former Marine, Oliver Sipple, who
was also in the crowd awaiting President Ford across the street from the St.
Francis Hotel. (Spieler, 2005)
If not for the quick action of Mr. Sipple, Moore would likely have been successful in her
attempt, as she was known to be a skilled and excellent shot. During the time between
her apprehension and trial,
!23
Six psychiatrists who examined Moore after the shooting offered
different views of her mental state. One pointed to manic-depression;
another said she had borderline personality disorder; a third said it was
a case of simple self-centeredness. All agreed that she was sane and
knew right from wrong when she fired a bullet at Ford’s head, and that
she was competent to stand trial. (Spieler, 2005)
More specifically,
Dr. Gustave Weiland, a psychiatrist who evaluated Moore, said that people like
her "cannot be described as psychotic." They were strange, yes, "seldom at ease
with themselves," and they had hard time making strong relationships. But on
some level, Moore knew what she was doing. (Laskow, 2015)
Sara Jane Moore may have been eccentric, but she was not impaired. She, in essence,
was a product of her time - a person enmeshed in the politically charged environment of
Vietnam and the furious tone of its protestors; yet, she held a personal, defining stake in
her violent and extreme concepts. “About her life as a radical, she said in hindsight, ‘I
was fascinated.’ About her undercover existence, she said, ‘I was intrigued by the whole
thing. It was like a B grade movie…I was really enjoying myself’” (Aarons, 1975, p. A1).
Moore was enraptured with the intrigue of her FBI informant position, but was
concurrently informing leftist radicals of her position and of any known government
interests in them. In effect, she was playing one side against the other, all the while
experiencing an elevated sense of self-importance as a result of her capers. She
eventually chose a side, so to speak, when she decided that she would be the individual
who would start a violent revolution by assassinating Gerald Ford. Interestingly, the day
before her attempt, she contacted San Francisco police and stopped short of giving her
intention away.
!24
On Saturday, September 20, 1975, Sara Jane called San Francisco
Police Detective Jack O'Shea, who she knew and had done some
informing for, and asked him for advice regarding President Ford's
visit to the San Francisco Bay Area. It was her idea to drive to Palo
Alto and test the Secret Service and police security of the president.
Ford was scheduled to be in Palo Alto dedicating a new building for
Stanford Law School on Sunday, Sept. 21, 1975.
O'Shea was alarmed. He asked Sara Jane if she had a gun. She said
yes. She had purchased a Charter Arms .44 caliber revolver for self-
protection. She said she had received death threats at the time that she
had "outed" herself as an FBI informant to the radical groups she had
been involved with.
O'Shea called people in his department and told them to confiscate
Sara Jane's gun on Sunday and hold her for carrying a concealed
weapon. However, early Sunday morning Sara Jane worked with what
was then called the U.S. Treasury Department, Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms on a possible illegal gun-sales sting. She left her home early
and drove downtown to the Federal Building on Golden Gate Ave.
From there she drove to Danville to the home of suspected gun dealer
Mark Fernwood with an agent who was posing as a friend.
The action didn't succeed and apparently the agent didn't make a
purchase. As soon as Sara Jane returned home, the SFPD confiscated
her gun; she was held and then released. Hours later the Secret Service
brought her in for questioning, but they let her go too. (Judd, 2009)
Moore biographer, Geri Speiler, characterized Sara Jane Moore as “fundamentally
unknowable,” and described her as, “a brilliant and complex person. What is sad is that
she could have contributed so much to our society, her children and family” (Judd, 2009).
Moore, however, was not terribly interested in making a meaningful, non-violent
contribution to anyone. She was so enmeshed in the cloak and dagger activities of her
double life that she felt compelled to take an extreme action. With regard to Moore as a
“fundamentally unknowable” person, while police were suspicious of her, she could be so
seemingly forthcoming that they did not place her on any kind of high alert list the day of
!25
Gerald Ford’s San Francisco appearance. Had the sight on her gun not been slightly off,
odds of her succeeding in her attempt were high.
Sara Jane Moore pled guilty to attempted assassination. She received a life
sentence. Upon receiving her sentence, she stated,
Am I sorry I tried? Yes and no. Yes, because it accomplished little except to throw
away the rest of my life. And, no, I'm not sorry I tried, because at the time it
seemed a correct expression of my anger. (Spieler, 2009, p. 177)
Her tone changed over the time, and within a few years of being incarcerated, she wrote a
letter of apology to Gerald Ford. Throughout her time in prison, she was a model
prisoner with the exception of an escape in 1979, from which she was captured a few
hours later. She was released after serving 32 years of a life sentence for good behavior.
In 2009, she was featured on the morning television show, TODAY, and talked about her
crime in hindsight.
"It was a time people don’t remember. We had a war in this country,
the Vietnam War,” Moore told Matt Lauer in an exclusive interview on
TODAY. “This is going to sound a little strange, but I really thought it
would trigger a new revolution. We were saying that the country
needed to change, the only way it was going to change was through a
violent revolution. I genuinely thought that this might trigger that new
revolution in this country." (DeMarco, 2009)
Appearing grandmotherly and speaking (apparently) candidly, Moore expressed
remorse over her crime in stating, "I am very glad I did not succeed. I know now that I
was wrong to try,” and explained her desire to appear on television in expressing that,
“one gets tired of being thought of as a kook, a monster, an alien. I’m a human
being” (DeMarco, 2009). While Moore seemed a sympathetic presence during the
interview, her appearance may not have been indicative of her true essence.
!26
Before Spieler wrote her book, she spent years talking with and
visiting Moore, informally. It was Moore's idea that she write the book.
But as soon as the process started, and Spieler made clear that Moore
wouldn't have control over who she talked to or what would go into
the story, Moore cut her off: "I am no longer home to you," she said,
and never talked to Spieler again. (Judd, 2009)
Despite Moore’s refusal to continue to assist Spieler in the writing of her
biography, Spieler proceeded nonetheless. She interviewed nearly 200 people who had
known Moore in one capacity or another, including family and friends. When
interviewed about her encounters with those who knew Moore, Spieler said, “I don't think
I found anyone who liked her or respected her, not even her family,” and that Moore was,
“a very unpopular person” (Judd, 2009). Much like the accounts from other mothers of
Danville who had chosen to exclude Moore from their social circle, even Moore’s own
family members found her self-centered and overbearing. Ironically, when Spieler
researched Moore’s family, she expected to discover evidence of childhood abuse or
neglect. She was surprised, however, to discover the opposite.
Sara Jane had one older sister and three younger brothers. All seem to
lead fairly normal lives in that none has serious relationship problems
or violent behavior. I did try to find out if there had been any child
abuse or child sexual abuse which would have explained some of her
behavior, but found nothing.
I interviewed friends and family and I am convinced Ruth and Olaf
were good, decent parents and did the best they could. For whatever
reason, Sara Jane seemed to have her own vision of the world which
was locked up inside her own head. It was troubling to everyone
around her. If anything did happen at some point – like when she
disappeared for three days -- we don't know what it was, only she
knows.
If you ask Sara Jane today about her family or background she will tell
you: "I never talk about my past.” (Judd, 2009)
!27
Other than knowing from public records that her birth state was West Virginia,
very little is known about the early life of Sara Jane Moore except that she chose to
abandon it for multiple careers and marriages; yet, it was her mother who ended up
raising and formally adopting her eldest three children. Moore seemed to have used the
relationship with her family as it suited her needs, much like John Hinckley has with his
own family. Perhaps this behavior suggested symptoms of narcissistic or antisocial
personality disorder since her needs seemed to take precedent in own her mind to the
needs of others, including her own children. One psychiatrist who examined her
following the assassination attempt believed she suffered from borderline personality
disorder and her tendency to take the most dramatic and extreme routes in life may
support this. However, Sara Jane Moore has had a history of being guarded and elusive
when it suits her and is highly intelligent and a successful manipulator. Her TODAY
interview was calculated and while she appeared candid, her words were clearly well
chosen and created a portrait for the viewer that, essentially, manipulated the viewer’s
perception of her. While Moore was by all accounts a model prisoner who served her
time with little trouble, Moore was continuously contributing to political causes she
supported from the small prison salary she received. While certainly not illegal, her
continued interest in politics could be of concern.
Today, at 85 years of age, Moore would not likely be viewed as a dangerous
person if she were to step into a crowd awaiting a political figure. Because of her history
of grandiose ideas, however, it remains possible that Sara Jane Moore, known to “to have
!28
her own vision of the world which was locked up inside her own head,” could develop a
fixation on changing the system through a violent act as she did in the past. While age
may have impaired her physically in some ways, the possibility remains that Moore may
become dangerous. Though her years since release have been uneventful, it is not
possible to know without thorough psychiatric evaluation whether or not this will
continue to be the case. What is known is that Moore has a history of being either
guarded or outright deceitful.
Sara Jane Moore currently resides in an undisclosed small town in upstate New
York.
Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme.
I stood up and waved a gun (at Ford) for a reason. I was so relieved
not to have to shoot it, but, in truth, I came to get life. Not just my life
but clean air, healthy water and respect for creatures and creation.
(Fromme, 2005)
Lynette Fromme was born on October 22, 1948, in Santa Monica, California. Her
father worked as an engineer and her mother stayed at home to raise their children.
Fromme was an exceptional child: A star student and a gifted child performer. She was in
a touring dance troupe and enjoyed a modicum of fame and success at a very young age.
Her formative years in the subdivisions of Westchester and Redondo
Beach had the patina of postwar, middle-class bliss. As a star of the
Lariats amateur dance troupe, she toured nationwide, brushing with
celebrity on Dinah Shore's and Art Linkletter's TV shows and giving
command performances for the likes of Annette Funicello at Walt
Disney's ranch. (Sipchen, 1997, p. 2)
Despite the appearance of success in Fromme’s young life, as she entered
adolescence, she faced difficulties in her family life. While little is known or has been
!29
written about her relationship with her stay-at-home mother, Fromme herself has
expressed much disdain surrounding her relationship with her father. Their relationship
was particularly contentious. Of it, Sipchen (1997) wrote that
Although she vehemently denies Bravin's implication that her father
sexually and physically abused her, and says that on the whole her
childhood was happy, Fromme acknowledges the damage inflicted
upon her by the first man in her life.
"He was emotionally abusive. He refused his attention. He refused to
have even a conversation, and I didn't understand what I had done
wrong. . . . He began cutting me off at the age of 13, and that was it.
We didn't speak for five years. He wouldn't let me in the same room
with him."
These days, Fromme tries to explain her father as the product of an
increasingly stressful time, when people worked more to earn more to
buy more to attain more prestige.
"I think now that I had just grown up and he was angry about it. When
men are busy and working, or maybe women too, they can lose track
of their children and turn around to find that they've missed the whole
childhood and the kid now belongs to high school and other
friends." (pp. 2-3)
Upon contemplating her availability for recruitment by Charles Manson, Fromme
conveyed a hindsight perspective that created a connection between the relational
difficulties with her father and her attraction to the (perceived) care and interest she
received from Manson.
Fromme says she still loves Manson. She acknowledges, though, that
under different circumstances, her path and his might never have
crossed; her destiny might have been different.
"If my father had understood himself, he would have known how to
talk to me, and I probably wouldn't have been out there on the streets
looking for a place to go the night I met Manson. . . .” (Judd, 2009)
!30
Unlike other Manson followers who have renounced him since their or his
incarceration over the years, Fromme has steadfastly maintained her love for him and yet
describes her relationship with him as a mere piece of the reason she raised a loaded gun
in the direction of Gerald Ford. “Fromme's gun was not loaded and she never aimed it at
Ford. Her sole objective was to get arrested and get a platform for Charlie” (Judd, 2009).
Lynette Fromme, still in the throngs of her Manson devotion, was incredibly naive
when she elected to serve as her own defense during her trial, expressing in an interview,
“What would you estimate to be your percentage chance at this point
of being found not guilty?” Richmond asked.
“Oh, I feel, I feel definitely I have probably a 70 percent chance on the
percentage scale,” Fromme replied, adding, “I don’t feel that I’ll be
convicted of attempted assassination.” (Stanton & Walsh, 2014)
Fromme was found guilty of attempted assassination and was given a life
sentence. Like Sara Jane Moore, Lynette Fromme escaped prison in 1987. She was
caught after an exhaustive manhunt a mere two days later. It had been rumored that
Charles Manson was ill, and she wanted to visit him. This sentiment, however, remains
unconfirmed.
In a 1997 phone interview with reporter Bob Sipchen (1997) of the Los Angeles
Times, Fromme was asked, “Why, almost 30 years ago, did a cluster of largely middle-
class American kids glom onto Charles Manson and commit crimes, including murder,
while under his thrall? ‘Some people are just destined, I think,’ said Fromme” (p. 1).
In a 1998 letter to CBS news producer, Paul LaRosa (2009), responding to his
enquiry about what she had learned from her years in prison, Fromme thoughtfully
!31
responded, "…this time in prison has shown me more of what I believed to start with,
more of human nature, more of timelessness, more of cold, hard realities and of the
absolute miracle of existence.” In an April 2000 letter to LaRosa (2009), Fromme
expressed,
she was more and more interested in the conservation movement,
especially Julia "Butterfly" Hill who at that time had become famous
for sitting in a redwood for 738 days. "I'm interested in the true state of
the planet and the innovative moves being tried to both cut down on
and recycle waste, on the whole concept of microcosm and
macrocosm, infinitely smaller and infinitely larger life – but primarily
in what we want to preserve, explore, examine and simply enjoy.
"I don't want to trash this planet. I believe we lose our right to know
and have what we don't respect.”
Lynette Fromme was released from prison on August 14, 2009. She now resides
in the town of Marcy in upstate New York. She has not been charged with any crimes
since that time.
Mark David Chapman.
“I thought that by killing him I would acquire his fame.”
Mark David Chapman in an interview with Barbara Walters.
(Walters, 1992)
Mark David Chapman was born on May 10, 1955, in Fort Worth, Texas, but he
grew up in near Atlanta, Georgia. His father was abusive to him and his mother, and
Mark used his imagination to escape the chaos at home. Following a difficult start in high
school, Chapman experienced a religious conversion around the age of 16 and became a
devout born-again Christian. After that time, he gained a sterling reputation among
teachers and his employers at the YMCA; so sterling that upon learning of the murder,
!32
Mark’s chorus teacher from Columbia High School in Atlanta said, “Out of the 400
students I had, Mark would be the last to do something like that” (Unger, 1981, p. 31).
While Chapman’s late teenaged and early-adult years were spent positively
influencing children and young teens through various YMCA camp counseling positions
for which he was never to receive anything but positive evaluations, his personal life
became progressively misguided and misunderstood. Eventually, Chapman left Georgia
for Hawaii in an effort to find himself and get over his emerging feelings of frustration
and depression. He met and married a woman named Gloria Abe, who remains his wife
to the present (Summers & Waldman, 2010). Much like John Hinckley’s family could
not understand him, Mr. Chapman’s wife had no greater success in understanding him,
except for recognizing limited instances of depression and psychosis that seemed fleeting
and containable in nature. When he stated he was going to New York City to find a
publisher for his alleged children’s book, Melecko the Gecko, she believed him, and never
suspected the murder of John Lennon was even remotely a conceivable part of his intent,
despite the fact that she knew that he had been disillusioned by Lennon and had spoken
of killing him during a previous psychotic episode.
Following the shooting,
When police cars began arriving a few minutes after the shooting in
front of the Dakota, Chapman was simultaneously relieved and
frightened. Two uniformed police officers stepped out of the first car
that pulled up at the curb as he continued to pace slowly beneath the
dim light under the stone archway. He held the red paperback tenderly,
in both hands, close to his face. He still hoped that he would disappear
into the ink of the book or that his body would shrivel into a fetal ball.
From the corner of his eye, he saw one of the officers rush past him,
into the building where John Lennon lay dying. The other officer, a
!33
large and muscular man, approached the doorman who began
nervously pointing at Chapman. In a quick, fluid motion, the officer
drew his pistol and removed his hat…Before the officer could speak to
him, Chapman’s hands were in the air. He held the book tight against
his hatless head.
“Don’t hurt me,” he pleaded, “I’m unarmed. Don’t let anybody hurt
me.” (Jones, 1992)
Mark David Chapman, like John Hinckley, was aware of the implicit weight of
his actions, and like Hinckley, was cowardly when his own arrest occurred. Unlike
Hinckley, however, Chapman was truly psychotic when he killed John Lennon. He spoke
of standing outside of The Dakota where Lennon and his family lived and believing that
the gargoyles on the buildings facade were speaking to him. He also expressed an
acknowledgement of a duality of personality.
I never wanted to hurt anybody, my friends will tell you that. I have
two parts in me. The big part is very kind. The children I work with
will tell you that. I have a small part in me that cannot understand the
world and what goes on in it. I did not want to kill anybody and I
really don’t know why I did it. I fought against the small part for a
long time. But for a few seconds the small part won. I asked God to
help me but we are responsible for our own actions. I have nothing
against John Lennon or anything that he has done in the way of music
or personal beliefs. I came to New York from Hawaii about five
weeks ago and the big part of me did not want to shoot John. I went
back to Hawaii and tried to get rid of my small part but I couldn’t.
(Jones, 1992)
Chapman was known to experience bouts of psychosis and had attempted suicide
in the years prior to the murder. He was hospitalized at one point, but did not receive
substantial continued care after the fact. His wife encouraged him to seek additional help
and was supportive of him, but he could become menacing and distant and she could not
force him to participate. In reaction to the delusional ideas he developed following the
!34
reading of The Catcher in the Rye, he felt compelled to travel to New York to murder
Lennon, who he believed was the embodiment of the “phonies” lead character, Holden
Caufield, discussed in the novel.
Following his arrest, several mental health professionals evaluated Chapman; they
all deemed that his mental illness was genuine, but that he was competent to stand trial.
His defense team planned to pose an insanity defense and were in the midst of preparing
for trial when,
eleven days before the selection of the jury for his trial was to get
underway, Chapman started talking about changing his plea. After
months of preparation for the trial, which Chapman’s new attorney,
Jonathan Marks (Chapman’s first attorney resigned after receiving
threatening phone calls), had assembled a top flight team of experts to
buttress a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, Chapman reported
that "God told me…to change my plea,” to guilty after all. (Unger,
1981, p. 30)
When Chapman appeared in court to enter his plea and be sentenced, he read from
The Catcher in the Rye, as an explanation of his actions. He pled guilty to second degree
murder and was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. He has been eligible for parole
consideration every two years since 2000, and it has been denied eight times. He is a
model inmate who remains married to the same woman and who spends most of his time
working in various positions within the prison, though he has been especially active in
the prison ministry he started.
Franklin Frye.
“They locked me up for no reason,” he said. “They never found the necklace on
me I don’t know if they ever found it.” Franklin Frye to The Washington Times.
(McElhatton, 2014)
!35
In 1970, Franklin Frye was a custodian in a Washington, D.C., branch of the
United States Post Office. Despite having been plagued with bouts of depression and
psychosis well known to his family, he had no criminal history, and held a steady federal
job. That year, he was accused of stealing a $20.00 necklace from a store and was
arrested. Although he maintained his innocence, he panicked when arrested, was held
and his pathological presentation quickly became evident. Prior to his court date, he was
assessed by a court appointed psychologist and found incompetent to stand trial.
More than 40 years later, Franklin Frye has finally obtained a conditional program
of release from St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital. While he may have committed a minor
shoplifting offense - a misdemeanor, no less - he has been held against his will for years
longer than Mr. Hinckley.
While there is no debate among his family members or his clinicians that he is
mentally ill, his elder brother expresses that he has been “way worse” (McElhatton,
2014), as a result of being involuntarily held at St. Elizabeths for such a lengthy period.
When Franklin Frye last approached his court-appointed attorney in 2008, he was told
that he had received a hearing for his unconditional release. That hearing was on the
docket of a judge who was deceased. This error was not to be examined until six years
later in 2014, and even now, Mr. Frye has been granted a release contingent on conditions
of the hospital.
Franklin Frye, a 68-year-old African-American, impoverished male who
sometimes experiences psychotic episodes, is a fellow patient of John W. Hinckley, Jr.,
!36
and resides alongside him in the John Howard Pavilion at St. Elizabeths Hospital.
According to the hospital, ”Mr. Frye suffers from a host of mental illnesses and
conditions, including ‘schizo-affective disorder, bipolar type’, leading him to experience
paranoia and suspicions as well as irritability and mood fluctuations” (McElhatton,
2014).
Unlike Mr. Hinckley, however, Mr. Frye’s crime has never been adjudicated.
Unlike Mr. Hinckley, he does not have an expensive private defense team at his disposal
to make sure the court remembers him and processes his case in a timely fashion.
According to an article in The Washington Post, “Now he can hardly stand up
because of all the medications he’s on, and I don’t think they can justify why they’re
giving him all of this medicine,” his brother, William Frye said. “He’s much worse
now” (McElhatton, 2014).
With regard to Franklin Frye seeking release, his brother expressed that, “‘He’s
been trying to fight for what he wants for so long,’ said William Frye, a retired city utility
worker-turned-pastor. ‘He’s like [a] junkyard dog, and he keeps calling you over and over
and over, because he knows he’s right. He’s been abused and neglected and rejected for
so long, that’s all he knows’” (McElhatton, 2014). Unlike John Hinckley, Franklin Frye
and his family have had to fight tirelessly to draw even minimal attention to his situation,
and he has still been largely neglected for over 40 years.
In that same interview, “He said the cumulative impact of four decades inside St.
Elizabeths has taken a toll on his brother’s mental health. William Frye said he only
recently learned that his brother attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, even though he
!37
said Franklin has never had a drinking problem. ‘He goes there to get away from the
madness in the ward,’ William Frye said. ‘It’s the only place where he met with people
who treated him like a human being and who would be willing to listen to what he had to
say. I mean, everybody wants to have some level of respect, even in St.
Elizabeths’” (McElhatton, 2014).
Despite the fact that Franklin Frye has been granted a conditional release and is
succeeding in his compliance with its terms currently, over 40 years of involuntary
commitment for a shoplifting offense will continue to mar his ability to reintegrate into
society.
St. Elizabeths. In 2014, Julia Barber, was a 36-year-old woman who was found
not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to St. Elizabeths in 2007, for the 2005
murder by drowning of her 6-year-old son, Donmiguel. She had bound and gagged the
child prior to submerging him in the bathtub. According to Washington Times reporter,
Keith Alexander (2014),
According to court documents, Barber was plagued by mental
problems and drug addiction and began deteriorating precipitously in
the weeks before she killed her son, denying herself food and sleep,
talking to herself and telling others that she was hearing voices.
Barber had made repeated requests for time off of the grounds at St. Elizabeths
and had been granted a few weekend passes. However, in early May of 2014, on a bright
Saturday morning, Barber simply walked past the guard stand at one of the gates and off
the grounds of St. Elizabeths without informing anyone. Although she returned the next
night of her own volition, she was the third patient from that hospital to leave the campus
!38
without permission since February of the same year. Ms. Barber was fortunate to return
to the hospital in good condition, as Daniel Ellis, a 56-year-old man was not so lucky.
Ellis, like Barber, simply walked off of the St. Elizabeths Hospital campus
without detection on February 9, 2014. Ellis was an on-again, off-again patient at St.
Elizabeths since the mid-1980s. The Washington Post reported,
Court records show that Ellis has a long history of run-ins with
authorities. Court records associated with many of his arrests —
mostly involving petty crimes — quote doctors saying Ellis had been a
patient at St. Elizabeths “almost continuously” since 1985 and had
received a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Many charges filed against Ellis dating to the early 1980s were
dismissed because doctors repeatedly found him incompetent to stand
trial, according to court records. He does have several felony
convictions, most for assault. (Hermann, 2014)
Despite his violent history that included a 2008 assault of a fellow patient (Ellis
punched him in the face at least 20 times with a closed fist), during his 2014 stay, Ellis
had voluntarily committed himself. Part of his security plan, however, included limiting
his access on campus, and prohibiting him from leaving the campus without permission.
Specifically, Ellis “was allowed to be in his building’s lobby and on the grounds as long
as staff members were present” (Hermann, 2014). While it was his legal prerogative to
leave the hospital at any time against medical advice, the hospital maintains that he did
not express that as his intent on February 9, and had he done so, action would have been
taken to ensure that he was forced to stay for a 48-hour involuntary period that would
have allowed his current status to be assessed. None of this occurred, and Daniel Ellis
was found dead five days later on February 14, 2014, underneath a pile of snow in
!39
Southeast Washington D.C., about two miles from the hospital. No foul play was
suspected. He was the first of three patients at St. Elizabeths who left the campus without
permission in a 3-month period, none having been asked to provide identification or
credentials by the guard at the gate. While Ms. Barber and another patient returned
safely, Mr. Ellis was not as fortunate.
Andrea Yates.
After Andrea called 911, she called Rusty. “It’s time. I finally did it,”
was her first statement to him. Then she told him to come home and
hung up. Rusty called back, alarmed by her tone of voice, and asked
Andrea if anyone was hurt. “It’s the kids,” Andrea said. He inquired
which one. She said, “All of them.” (Denno, 2003, p. 35)
No examination of the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict would be complete
without an understanding of the case of Andrea Yates.
Yates was born Andrea Pia Kennedy in Texas on July 2, 1964. Her upbringing
was tumultuous, her father experiencing problems with alcoholism and her mother being
a workaholic. Despite these factors, Yates was an extremely successful student -
Valedictorian of her high school class - who went on to become a competent and well-
respected registered nurse. Yates worked at the University of Texas' M.D. Anderson
Cancer Center from 1986 until 1994 (Denno, 2003, p. 7; Resnick, 2007, p. 147). She met
Russell Yates, known as Rusty, when they lived in the same apartment complex. Rusty
Yates was an engineer who worked for NASA; a young successful professional the same
age as Andrea. Though she was raised in the Roman Catholic church, during her
courtship with Rusty, she embraced more extreme, devout Christian beliefs. She and
Rusty married in 1993, and decided to have as many children as they could. She left the
!40
nursing profession following the birth of her first child to be a stay-at-home wife and
mother. Andrea Yates was enthusiastic about becoming a great mother and, by all
accounts, before she became ill, she did. According to Resnick (2007),
Every witness in her trial agreed that Andrea Yates was a wonderful
mother. She home schooled her children because her husband was
concerned that the children might “pick up bad habits” if they went to
public school. For each holiday, Mrs. Yates hand made crafts and
costumes for her children in order to recreate the original holiday for
them. (p. 148)
Her first son, Noah, was conceived a few months after the marriage. Following
his birth, Andrea experienced her first frightening sign of postpartum depression or
psychosis, when,
Soon after Noah’s birth in 1994, for example, Andrea experienced
hallucinations—a striking vision of a knife and her stabbing someone.
She dismissed the image and never revealed it to anyone until after her
arrest, when she told Rusty. (Denno, 2003, p. 27)
Despite this initial, undisclosed bout of silent suffering, Ms. Yates’ symptoms
seemed to spontaneously remit, and she went on to have another son, John, in 1995. Both
Noah and John had been born via natural childbirth, and she would go on to deliver her
other three children in the same fashion, believing that the
pain of it when you have it, it would kind of influence you to be more Christian
because it was maybe a little suggestive how you would feel down in hell, the
pain, if you remember that you’ll be more of a Christian. (Dietz, 2002, p. 15)
She later reported that she had felt fine following her second delivery with no experience
of postpartum depression or psychosis. In 1996, she had a miscarriage in November, but
went on to become pregnant once again in early 1997, which led to the birth of her third
son, Paul, in September. Following the birth of Paul, Ms. Yates again experienced no
!41
depressed feelings or psychotic features. Once her fourth son, Luke was born in 1999,
however, within weeks Yates began struggling with fully-syndromal severe depression
and frequent bouts of psychosis, marked by terrifying delusions and hallucinations.
Rusty Yates later recalled that, “In 1999…she stared blankly all day long” (Dietz, 2002,
p. 11). Six weeks after the birth of Luke, her first breakdown occurred.
After her fourth son, Luke, was born on February 25, 1999, Mrs. Yates
felt overwhelmed and depressed. She knew through a “feeling” that
Satan wanted her to kill her children. On June 18, 1999, Mrs. Yates
took an overdose of medication to take her own life rather than risk
harming her children. Her suicide attempt led to her first psychiatric
hospitalization (June 18 to 24, 1999). Her second psychiatric
hospitalization (July 26 to August 10, 1999), occurred five weeks later
after she attempted to cut her throat. Her discharge diagnosis was
Major Depressive Episode, severe, recurrent, with psychotic features.
After a couple months of subsequent psychiatric outpatient
appointments, Mrs. Yates dropped out of treatment because she was
“feeling better.” (Resnick, 2007, p. 148)
As so often occurs with mothers who feel the need to harm their children, but
reject doing so as a possibility, Yates twice attempted to harm herself instead of her
children. According to West (2007), this behavior is fairly common. She determined in
her meta-analysis of women who go on to kill their children that, “Based on the six
studies, an average of 36.4 percent of filicidal women attempted or committed
suicide” (p. 52). Yates initially found that attempting to kill herself, as opposed to killing
her children, was the better solution, for at least a time. Yates was able to reject her
homicidal thoughts in 1999, in her ability to reject the hallucinations and delusions she
was experiencing at the time, but only to an extent. She still believed Satan had a target,
and it had to be either her or her children.
!42
Mrs. Yates did not kill her children in 1999 in spite of command
hallucinations to do so because she believed it was not in her
children’s best interest to die at that time. When she heard the “voice
of Satan” instructing her to stab her children in 1999, she, instead,
twice attempted suicide rather than risk harming her children. It was
only when her psychosis recurred in 2001 that she came to
delusionally believe that it was in her children’s best interest to die.
Only then did she take their lives “to save their souls.” (Resnick, 2007,
p. 150)
While Andrea Yates was having children in quick succession and struggling with
mental disorders, she and her husband were following the religious teachings of Michael
Woroneicki (sometimes spelled Warnecki). Woroneicki and his wife, Rachael, lived with
their large brood of children in a converted Greyhound bus and traveled the country
preaching a radical form of the Christian gospel. Woroneicki published tracts known as
Perilous Times, which Rusty and Andrea read and followed, regarding Woroneicki as a
spiritual mentor. While already feeling inadequate as a wife, and particularly, a mother,
Andrea was reading these tracts that did nothing to increase her self-esteem and served
only to make her feel worse about herself. During the testimony of Park Dietz, a writing
of the Woroneicki’s read by Andrea was entered as evidence.
The one document available for review that sets forth the views of the
Warnecki family is a single issue (2000-1J) of their tract, The Perilous
Times. In it, Mrs. Warnecki wrote: “. . . A woman is created to be a
“helper.” This does not mean a wife. It means a servant, single or
married. If a girl does not know how to be a servant then she is
learning how to be a ruler. It’s called witchcraft. . . . There is great joy
to be had in helping your children develop and apply their abilities. I
can’t fathom sending them off to strangers and strange spirits for eight
hours a day. Talk about demonic! . . . The eternity of my children is my
accountability while they are children and I would be sending them to
!43
hell if I raised them to think according to the standards of this
world.” (Dietz, 2002, p. 16)
During testimony, Dr. Lucy Puryear, who had evaluated Andrea for the defense,
testified about the significance of the Woroneicki writings in concert with Yates’ already
compromised psychiatric state. “Copies of the Woroneicki publication, Perilous Times,
discovered in the Yates home, were filled with dangerous content for someone like
Andrea, who, Puryear said, was delusional about religion” (O’Malley, 2004, p. 172).
Puryear further testified that many individuals suffering with psychosis find their
delusions and hallucinations taking on religious forms or imagery.
Following her first discharge, Yates saw Dr. Eileen Starbranch on an outpatient
basis. On July 1, 1999, in an evaluative interview with Dr. Starbranch, “Mrs. Yates
denied having ever had thoughts of harming someone else” (Dietz, 2002, p. 26). It was
during this session that, “Dr. Starbranch had brought up the advice to avoid pregnancy,
but at least to take medication during any future pregnancy, in joint sessions attended by
her husband” (Dietz, 2002, p. 27). Yates had another session scheduled for the seventh of
the month that she did not attend. Starbranch called the Yates home, and was informed
by Rusty Yates that Andrea had flushed her Zyprexa (an anti-psychotic) down the toilet,
resentful of being labeled as psychotic, but that she had continued taking her Zoloft (an
anti-depressant) and seemed to be improving.
During her second hospitalization that followed her second suicide attempt,
Andrea Yates remained under the care of Dr. Starbranch. According to Dietz (2002),
On 7/21/99, Mrs. Yates was admitted to Spring Shadows Glen Hospital
under the care of Dr. Starbranch. On admission, Mrs. Yates was
!44
“almost mute,” with severe psychomotor retardation. Her energy level
was low. She worried about her children. She had gone for days
without eating. Dr. Starbranch thought Mrs. Yates probably had a
thought disorder. (p. 27)
Andrea did improve following her second hospitalization, and by the end of 1999,
felt well enough to resume running and to function well, once again, as a wife and
mother. She was engaged and content, and felt so well that she and Rusty decided to
ignore the advice of Dr. Starbranch and try for another pregnancy. According to Resnick
(2007),
In spite of contrary advice from her treating psychiatrist about the high
rate of recurrence of postpartum depression, Mrs. Yates and her
husband decided to have another baby. (p. 148)
Andrea ceased all medication and in early 2000, became pregnant with her fifth
and final child, Mary. She took no medications during pregnancy, against medical
advice. Her concern about her ability to succeed as a mother remained a concern,
however. When she met with Debbie Holmes, a friend since she had worked as a nurse,
Holmes later acknowledged “Andrea was upset to see that their daughter, Rachel, who
was the same age as Noah, was reading and writing better than he” (Dietz, 2002, p. 13).
Despite the apparent psychiatric improvement that was taking place, Andrea continued to
indulge in her former patterns of self-deprecating comparison.
Though she struggled to maintain a veil of normalcy, Andrea was struggling
terribly. The stressors on her were many, and while she tried to cope, she was again
burdened with postpartum issues that would not permit her, or her children, to emerge
unscathed.
!45
Andrea’s stressors were numerous. First, over the course of her
marriage to Rusty (during which she was nearly always either pregnant
or breastfeeding), Andrea consistently demonstrated DSM-listed
criteria for postpartum mood disorder: “fluctuations in mood, mood
lability, and preoccupation with infant well-being.” Like the DSM
specification, these feelings “ranged from overconcern to frank
delusions” and they also took the form of suicide attempts related to
the other circumstances in Andrea’s life—uprooted living conditions
and transiency, home schooling her five children, her father’s death,
depressive illnesses throughout her family, Rusty’s own bizarre
behavior and pressure for more children, as well as Andrea’s
increasing obsession with religious doctrine, particularly as it was
pitched by Michael Woroniecki and his wife, Rachel. As the DSM
notes, “[t]he presence of severe ruminations or delusional thoughts
about the infant is associated with a significantly increased risk of
harm to the infant.” (Denno, 2003, p. 27)
Andrea started exhibiting signs of depression and psychosis within weeks of
giving birth, but none so severe that hospitalization seemed warranted. However, Andrea
was seemingly improved until the death of her father from Alzheimer’s Disease in March
of 2001. Soon thereafter, her ruminations became obsessions, and eventually,
Mrs. Yates believed that Satan was within her and tormented her and
the children. She thought that after she drowned her children, she
would be arrested and executed. She indicated that Satan would be
executed along with her. She believed it was right to drown her
children because she wanted to save their souls and didn’t want them
to be “in Satan's hands.” (Resnick, 2007, p. 149)
Once she began to aggressively decompensate, her odd, often catatonic behavior
became almost constant. She was clearly severely ill once again, and her husband felt
inpatient treatment was necessary.
Mrs. Yates had two additional psychiatric hospitalizations (March 31,
2001 to April 12, 2001, and May 4 to 14, 2001) after the birth of her
fifth child, Mary, on November 3, 2000. Her fourth hospitalization was
precipitated by Mrs. Yates filling her bathtub at 4:00 p.m. She could
!46
not offer any explanation for doing this other than “I might need
it.” (Resnick, 2007, p. 148)
When she was subject to re-hospitalization, the psychiatrist overseeing her care,
Dr. Mohammed Saeed indicated that, “Andrea was so opposed to being re-hospitalized at
Devereux Texas Treatment Center on March 31, 2001, that Saeed had to start the process
of involuntarily committing her to a state hospital” (Denno, 2003, p. 40).
From the time following her fourth hospitalization (her second following the birth
of Mary), matters went from bad to worse.
In the five weeks between Mrs. Yates’s hospital discharge on May 14,
2001 and the drowning of her five children on June 20, 2001, Mrs.
Yates had a number of psychotic symptoms. She thought that
television commercials for candy were referring directly to her. She
believed that one commercial was saying that she was a “fat pig” and
that she gave her children too much candy. She had a delusional belief
since 1999 that television cameras were placed throughout her home to
monitor the quality of her mothering. She thought that her mother-in-
law was part of the monitoring and that there was a camera in her
mother-in-law’s glasses. Mrs. Yates also had paranoid ideas that her
house was “bugged” because she saw a van near her home. Finally, she
had the belief that the one and only Satan was literally within her.
(Resnick, 2007, p. 148)
Her second hospitalization following the birth of Mary was replete with
difficulties. After her readmission to Devereaux Mental Hospital on May 4, Rusty Yates
had been reluctant to allow his once-again-catatonic wife to undergo electric shock
treatment without Saeed at least trying the injectable Haldol/Cogentin combination that
had brought Andrea out of psychosis within hours two years earlier (O’Malley, 2004, p.
181). Upon admission to the hospital, "diagnosis of Mrs. Yates was that she suffered
from a psychosis, schizoaffective disorder. This was based on her major depressive
!47
episodes, auditory and visual hallucinations, and paranoid delusions" (Resnick, 2007, p.
150).
It is of critical note that anti-psychotic medication was discontinued on June 4,
2001, because of its negative side effects; yet, Andrea Yates' mind was still ruminating
with frightening thoughts.
She thought that her son Luke would become a “mute homosexual
prostitute” and her son John would become a “serial murderer.” She
foresaw that her son Noah would die a tragic death and that her son
Paul would be hit by a truck. She was convinced that all of her
children would be punished and “burn in hell.” (Resnick, 2007, p. 149)
Because of her love for her children and her desire to save their immortal souls
from eternal damnation by sacrificing her own life and afterlife, she acted on her urges.
On June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned and killed all five of her children.
In statements that she made following the crime, she indicated that she
believed that she was a bad mother and that her children would not
grow up properly secondary to her shortcomings. She noted that she
killed them to save them from eternal damnation. (West, 2007, pp.
48-49)
Andrea Yates was overcome by (what she perceived as) the musings of Satan,
urging her to kill her children, give her life to the state for execution in order to execute
Satan, and to ultimately save the souls of the children while they were still innocent.
Somehow, through her convoluted, delusional thoughts, she determined that if she were
executed, Satan would be destroyed as well. On the day of the killings, she was left alone
when Rusty left for work. His mother would arrive an hour later. When he left, she was
feeding the children breakfast and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. All five were dead
within less than an hour. First, she killed Paul, aged three and her most docile child, as
!48
his brother, Luke, watched. She then drowned 2-year-old Luke. Next, she drowned 5-
year-old John, followed by six-month-old Mary. As Mary lay face down in the tub, 7-
year-old Noah entered the bathroom and asked, “What’s wrong with Mary?” Andrea then
had to chase 50-pound Noah in order to force him into the tub. He struggled the most of
the five children, coming up for air twice, and at one point muttering something that
Yates later believed was, “I’m sorry.” She left Noah face down in the tub, but placed her
other three sons on the bed in the master bedroom, and laid Mary in their arms. Denno,
(2003) suggested that, “the way that Andrea situated her children suggested that she may
have believed they were going to take care of one another” (p. 46).
Following the drownings, Yates called 911 and indicated that she needed a police
officer, though she declined to say why. Officers were dispatched for a welfare check at
her address. She then called Rusty and told him that he needed to come home because all
of the children were hurt. She failed to elaborate, and he headed immediately to the
house.
When police arrived, she was soaking wet and told them that she had killed her
children. She led one officer to the bodies in the bed and as the other officer searched the
house, he discovered Noah, face down, still floating in the filthy bathwater (the children
had urinated, defecated, and vomited during their several minute-long drownings). Yates
was fully compliant with officers, answering all of their questions truthfully with a
remarkably flat affect. When she was taken down to the station for booking and further
questioning, she informed “Sgt. Mehl that she wanted to be punished and was prepared to
go to hell for what she had done” (Dietz, 2001, p. 102). She further told Sergeant Mehl
!49
“she wanted to be punished by the criminal justice system for what she had done and
asking when her trial would be” (Dietz, 2002, p. 103).
Yates was charged with the capital murder of Noah, John, and Mary Yates, but
was not charged in the murder of the other two boys (Paul and Luke), leaving the state
the ability to pursue additional charges if she was found not guilty. Capital murder,
punishable by death in Texas, was invoked because of the extremely young ages of the
victims and because multiple murders occurred in a single transaction. As the trial began
in 2002, Andrea had been stabilized by anti-psychotic medication and was considered
competent to stand trial and participate in her own defense. She was represented by
George Parnham, a family friend, who served as lead of her defense team and who
encouraged her to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, which she did. She was
evaluated by three primary psychiatrists: Dr. Phillip Resnick and Dr. Lucy Puryear for the
defense, and noted forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Park Dietz, for the prosecution. Of
interesting note is the fact that Dr. Dietz also served as the lead forensic psychiatrist for
the prosecution in the case of John Hinckley. As in the case of Hinckley, Dr. Dietz also
found that Ms. Yates was aware of the wrongfulness of her actions, and was therefore,
guilty.
When Dr. Lucy Puryear testified, she plainly expressed that, “Yates was simply
not in touch with reality at the time she drowned her children…She was
psychotic” (O’Malley, 2004, p. 172). She further maintained that major depressive
disorder with psychotic features was an incorrect diagnosis for Andrea Yates, and that by
focusing on signs of depression as opposed to signs of psychosis, treating clinicians
!50
missed clear signs of schizophrenia in Yates. Through his many hours of interviews with
Ms. Yates and through a thorough examination of her records, Dr. Resnick felt that “Mrs.
Yates believed that she was defeating Satan by taking her children’s lives and saving their
souls while they were still innocent” (Resnick, 2007, p. 151). Resnick had studied filicide
and felt passionately that Yates should receive treatment as opposed to punishment for
killing her children. According to O’Malley (2004), “Resnick’s advocacy of her
innocence was unreserved” (p. 157).
Park Dietz, testifying for the prosecution, agreed with Lucy Puryear’s observation
of schizophrenia in Ms. Yates. However, Dietz felt that she was fully aware of the
wrongful nature of her actions, and had a meaningful awareness of the consequences that
would follow. During his two interviews with Yates, Dietz described her as “remarkably
passive, unassertive, and humble” (Dietz, 2001, p. 6). In his evaluative report to the
court, Dietz (2002) concluded:
Taking into account the factors weighing on each side of the issue, I
conclude with reasonable medical certainty that Mrs. Yates, at the time
of drowning each child, knew that her actions were wrong in the eyes
of the law, wrong in the eyes of society, and wrong in the eyes of God.
She may nonetheless have believed that the killings were in the best
interests of the children and that the ends (saving the children) justified
the means (wrongly and illegally killing them). (p. 103)
Dietz may have made sound arguments in court; sound enough, that while the
death penalty was removed from consideration, Yates was found guilty of multiple counts
of capital murder, based on the fact that “the prosecution’s story about Andrea’s sanity
was clearer and also apparently consistent with the cultural norms of Harris County,
Texas” (Denno, 2003, p. 5). Harris County, Texas, sends more people to death row than
!51
any other single county in the United States; so, not surprisingly, many believed that “the
Yates jury judged psychiatric testimony not only by Texas culture but also by that
culture’s narrow legal view of what constitutes insanity” (Denno, 2003, p. 11). Dietz,
however, made a critical and shocking error that eventually led to the overturn of Yates’
initial convictions, and made way for a retrial in 2006, that led to her being found not
guilty by reason of insanity.
Park Dietz was a consultant for the television show, Law & Order. Dietz was
aware that Ms. Yates was a frequent viewer of that program. Dr. Dietz, while under oath,
testified about the effect of that program on her compromised mind, but he was entirely
in error.
The star expert forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Park Dietz, who testified that
Andrea Yates was not insane, used an example that was proven false.
He stated that Law & Order, a program that Andrea Yates regularly
watched, had aired an episode about a woman drawing her child and
successfully claiming the insanity defense. He had to bolster his
opinion with-that’s right - a media portrayal of a similar crime.
Because no such episode ever aired…, Andrea Yates’ lawyers filed a
successful appeal of her conviction. The court apparently recognized
the powerful influence of a television program on the jury. On
November 9, 2005, the Texas 1st Court of Appeals - that state’s highest
criminal court - reversed the murder convictions of Andrea Yates,
stating that the testimony of Dr. Dietz that included the reference to the
nonexistent Law & Order program, ‘could have affected the judgement
of the jury.’ A new trial was scheduled for March 2006. (Mackenzie,
2007, pp. 137-138)
While the Dietz error may have been honest considering he reviewed many scripts
and assumed that such an episode aired, he did not check facts and may have influenced
the jury with his remarks.
!52
When Dietz learned of his error, he wrote prosecutors Joe Owmby and
Kaylynn Williford and informed them that he had confused the
insanity episode he testified about with other Law & Order episodes
and infanticide cases. (Denno, 2003, p. 23)
This letter did not arrive until the guilty verdict had already been rendered.
However, the Yates defense team was able to have the verdict overturned. Andrea was
granted bail on the condition that she be remanded to a mental hospital. This major error
on part of Dr. Dietz could have been caused by the way he prefers to examine cases, and
the bias he indicated he felt toward the interview process.
Dietz favors instead the second source of mental evidence, which
includes examining the crime scene, analyzing autopsies and weapons,
and interviewing witnesses to the crime. Although “the ideal” would
be to have both types of evidence when making an evaluation, Dietz
has stated that, “[i]f I had to choose between the interview [with the
defendant] only or everything except the interview as a means of
getting to the truth, I’d prefer everything except the interview because
it would get me to the truth more often.” (Denno, 2003, pp. 19-20)
Dietz, perhaps, considered the secondary source of his accessibility to scripts of
Law & Order with more emphasis than was appropriate. Interestingly, Dietz’s interview
of Yates revealed one of the most interesting elements of her though processes prior to
killing her children.
PD: Why didn’t you tell him (Rusty) that you were afraid of hurting
the children?
AY: I just believed that if you tell somebody something bad that then it
would happen. It’s like, you know, Satan, he can hear us, what we say,
and I was afraid to share it with people ‘cause it’ll happen, he hears it
and makes it happen.
PD: He hears it?
AY: Uh-huh.
!53
PD: And makes it happen?
AY: Uh-huh. That was my belief, yeah. (Dietz, 2002, pp. 24-25)
Yates’ psychotic beliefs and magical thinking were revealed in no uncertain terms
in her interviews with Dietz, and a second jury was able to see that she was a tragically ill
woman placed in a circumstance that was beyond her ability to handle or control.
Following testimony in her second trial, “After the jury deliberated for 12 hours, they
found Mrs. Yates not guilty by reason of insanity” (Resnick, 2007, p. 153).
Andrea Yates fit the profile created by Dr. Phillip Resnick in his later studies of
filicide. In an examination of Resnick’s data on neonaticide and filicide, he found that
most perpetrators were over the age of 25, most (88%) were married, most were
psychotic (66%), most were depressed (72%), and most had altruistic motives (56%;
West, 2007, p. 54). While severely deluded, Ms. Yates’ motives were, from her
standpoint, altruistic in nature, and she, in her psychotic state, was willing to sacrifice
herself fully to save her children, as she understood it.
On July 26, 2006, Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity and
was committed to the Kerrville State Hospital. She is currently a model patient, and
while in 2012 she expressed a desire for a hospital leave pass to attend church, a judge
denied her request. More recently, she and her defense team considered a request for a
leave pass to attend supervised patient outings, but have since retracted her request,
fearful of public backlash.
!54
Her attorney, George Parnham, and his wife have remained faithful friends to
Andrea, and other than Rusty (who divorced her, remarried, and has a young son) and his
new wife, are among the very few people who take the time to visit her. In an April 2015
interview with The Houston Chronicle, Parnham described the current life of Andrea
Yates.
She makes greeting cards and sews aprons, which are sold
anonymously at craft shows. Parnham said Yates sends the proceeds to
the Yates Children Memorial Fund, which began in 2002 to improve
the mental health outcomes of mothers of new babies in the region.
"She wants to help build a legacy for those children to help prevent
future tragedies like hers," said Parnham. "Every kid deserves to be
raised by a mother free of mental illness.” (Hlavaty, 2015)
Andrea Yates will remain at Kerrville State Hospital until she is deemed ready to
reenter society. She is not aggressively pursuing her release, although former husband,
Rusty, remains hopeful.
Conclusion
While the cases of Bremer, Moore, and Fromme bear some resemblance to the
case of John Hinckley, Jr., they remain distinct in that none were held in custody under
the very specific terms of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. All served their
sentences, and did or did not express remorse for the crimes they had committed.
Nonetheless, all were granted their freedom after satisfying the requirements of their
sentences. As opposed to Hinckley, once their time was served, all were free to go about
their lives. Ironically, in being granted the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity,
Hinckley forced the courts to oversee his way of being in the world beyond what Bremer,
!55
Moore, and Fromme, who were found guilty, could ever be subjected to. While all
attempted to find fame or infamy through their attempts, it is Hinckley who ultimately
failed; the three other attempted assassins and Mark David Chapman are all free to
publish their creative works and speak publicly, while Hinckley is barred from doing so.
The experiences of other patients at St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital bear very little
resemblance to the case of John Hinckley. Although the hospital insists that Mr. Hinckley
does not receive any special treatment as a result of his notoriety, cases like that of
Franklin Frye, Julia Barber, and Daniel Ellis suggest otherwise. While these patients are
housed in the same institution as John Hinckley, with Ms. Barber also having been found
not guilty by reason of insanity, all have been grossly neglected at some point during their
periods of confinement. Franklin Frye, in particular, has been held not only in the same
hospital, but in the same treatment pavilion as Hinckley, yet his needs for adjudication
have been all but ignored by the hospital.
Finally, when comparing the case of John Hinckley to another famous NGRI
case- that of Andrea Yates, the contrast is abundantly clear. While Hinckley’s defense
team was able to convince a jury that he had been unable to conform to understanding
right from wrong during the instant he committed his crimes (which is disputable), at no
point in his lifetime has John Hinckley been recognized as nearly as continuously and
floridly psychotic in the vein of Andrea Yates during her periods of acute postpartum
psychosis, nor did he have any psychiatric history that bore any similarity in form or
quality to that of Ms. Yates; yet, Hinckley was to be found not guilty by reason of
insanity based on the same grounds as Andrea Yates.
!56
!57
Chapter 3: Method
Rationale of the Historical Archival Case Study Method
Although the shooting of Ronald Reagan and three others and the subsequent trial
of John Hinckley, Jr., was covered by every major news outlet worldwide, and though the
trial itself has been examined several times from a legal perspective, particularly in the
year that led up to the 1984 Insanity Defense Reform Act, a fully comprehensive psycho-
historical archival case study has never been undertaken. This is in part based on the fact
that Mr. Hinckley is not permitted to grant interviews to anyone outside of the clinical
context, and because the rights to his intellectual and creative properties are owned by the
persons and estates of James Brady, Thomas DeLahanty, and Timothy McCarty;
interested parties from the popular media have (perhaps) been discouraged from
undertaking the exhaustive research that could lead to a biography because of the legal
confusions created by this unusual agreement. Within the academic milieu, a
comprehensive case study from the earliest known days of John Hinckley through the
present has not been undertaken, or if such a work exists, is not part of the accessible
public record.
This dissertation provides a full and comprehensive case study of John W.
Hinckley, Jr., throughout the lifespan in order to expand the existing record. Additionally,
this dissertation examined the Hinckley case in relation to other similar cases as well as
cases of those of other individuals who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity,
but have had far different outcomes.
!58
A psycho-historical archival case study research method was employed in this
dissertation for the purpose of determining whether or not patterns exist within the known
behavioral record of John W. Hinckley, Jr., surrounding the influential nature of his
familial relations, external influences, and psychopathology. This research more
specifically seeks to examine how symptoms of psychopathology, issues around
enablement, and feelings of entitlement have (or have not) specifically informed the
clinical presentations, interpersonal interactions, and known creative works of John
Hinckley, Jr., throughout his life.
In Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Yin (2009) describes a case study
as an “empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and
within its real-life context,” when boundaries between “phenomenon and context are not
clearly evident” (p. 18). Through this form of inquiry, the case study method facilitates a
deeper examination of what exists as part of the record as it unfolds through continuous
research. One layer of data can lead to another, essentially, and to what extent is
unknown from the outset of examination. Further, the nature of this dissertation research
was intrinsic, according to Stark (1995), as its objective is to gain new and deeper
understanding and insight to a case about which much is already known.
Yin (2009) suggests that the case study method is appropriate when used to
analyze cases that may be unique, extreme, typical, revelatory or longitudinal. As Mr.
Hinckley has been in the mental health system for over 30 years now, and much
additional information about his time prior to entry is well documented, the longitudinal
nature of this case could provide very revelatory information about a case that, from its
!59
inception, could be considered incredibly unique, based on historical precedent alone.
Through content analysis with emphasis on recognizing the presence or absence of
theoretical patterns in the behavioral and psychiatric standings of Mr. Hinckley at various
times over a period of many years, a comprehensive understanding of the role this
particular area of influence has been examined. Archival research, also known as
descriptive research, was the primary data gathering method employed in this
dissertation, as analysis of archived records surrounding the clinical record, creative
works, and testimony of Mr. Hinckley and experts have allowed for the creation of an
accurate timeline of his pathological and personal history.
According to Rolls (2015), “Case studies allow a researcher to examine a
particular individual in far greater depth than experimental methods” (p. 2). Since John
Hinckley, Jr., is not available to participate in experimentation, the case study method
allowed for an objective outside examination of his life through the use of the archival
record. A great strength of the archival research method is its range. As research was
conducted, primary, secondary, and even tertiary sources were employed and revealed the
Hinckley case from many and varied perspectives, thus rendering a broad yet
comprehensive purview of his personal, legal, and psychological record. The use of
multiple sources aided in further understanding the impact of the Hinckley case on the
individuals and families that have been impacted by his crime as well as the impact the
case has had on other cases that were similar.
Rolls (2015) also states that
!60
case studies are also criticized for not being reliable (no two case
studies are alike) and therefore results cannot be easily generalized to
other people. The question arises as to whether we always have to find
out universal truths of behavior. Sometimes surely, it’s enough to
explore the lives of a unique individual. (p. 3)
Because of the utter uniqueness of the Hinckley case, examination of the life of a
unique individual is not only a worthwhile endeavor in terms of establishing a
comprehensive case history, but this method of examining the life of one lends itself to
understanding the experiences of others as a subsequently occurring response. While no
two case studies are identical, and thus, not generalizable per se, important information
from the Hinckley case study can be compared and contrasted to the cases of others,
despite the fact that different researchers may reach different conclusions. This fact,
however, does not diminish the idea that whether or not universal truths are unearthed,
important ideas can be gleaned from the case study method, regardless of the specific
direction the research follows.
When considering the rationale of employing the psycho-historical archival
research method for this dissertation, the alternatives, specifically the personal interview,
merit explanation. While interviewing John Hinckley, Jr., is a theoretically interesting
prospect, it is not without considerable risk. The media plan that is part of Mr.
Hinckley’s treatment plan expressly states that Mr. Hinckley is not allowed to grant
media interviews or display any of his creative works, except perhaps anonymously in the
context of a patient show where no work is placed up for sale (and even that has been
rejected on occasion). Treating clinicians developed this specific plan in hopes of
lessening Mr. Hinckley’s presenting traits relative to his narcissistic personality disorder,
!61
and of preventing him from gaining fame or attention, noting that this desire for notoriety
was a large part of what prompted the assassination attempt. While Mr. Hinckley is no
longer believed to suffer from major depressive disorder or to present with any psychotic
features, his diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder remains, although it is
considered ameliorated.
In the immediate months that followed his initial admission to St. Elizabeths
Mental Hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, Mr. Hinckley launched
a self-hewn publicity campaign of sorts, sending letters to over 50 various newspapers
and magazines, including the New York Times and Newsweek, espousing his views on all
manner of topics, and declaring himself a political prisoner and offering himself to the
Russian government in exchange for dissident physicist, Andrei Sakharov (Grove, 1985).
He responded to nearly every request for information, whether from a major news source,
a popular Texas radio station, or a troubled schoolgirl.
Also, according to Carl Beffa, a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) and
Hinckley’s Williamsburg-area therapist, Mr. Hinckley fails to distinguish between fame
and infamy, and regards himself as a famous person as opposed to an infamous person
(Montalbano, 2011). Allowing Mr. Hinckley to be the subject of any interview that is not
expressly clinical in nature has the potential to reaffirm his own fame-concept and could
potentially aggravate his narcissistic tendencies. This increase and reaffirmation of a
belief that does not serve him clinically could lead to decompensation if Mr. Hinckley
were to enjoy so much as a small exposure to an interested public and, as a result, could
choose to pursue public exposure, fame, and/or infamy through potentially violent means.
!62
Though the likelihood is slight, as is expressly explained in this dissertation, strategies to
reduce or eliminate the risk of decompensation are a critical part of his current treatment
plan.
Of particular note is the clinical opinion of assessing psychiatrist, Dr. Raymond
Patterson, who has long examined Hinckley for the federal government. In his most
recent assessment of Mr. Hinckley, he reiterated his belief that it was Hinckley’s
narcissistic personality disorder and not his major depressive disorder or psychosis that
was the impetus of his attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan. While other clinicians have
maintained that it was Hinckley’s symptoms of major depressive disorder and his
(alleged) psychosis that led to his criminal acts, the recognition of his continuing
presentation of narcissistic personality disorder as the primary factor is cause for concern
by those seeking to indirectly enhance his fame concept through the act of interviewing
him, if only for research or informative purposes.
A significant part of the exploration of the case of John Hinckley is lost if his
current treatment plan is affected by outside influence in any way. In order to preserve
the archival nature of this research, avoiding the one-on-one interview was a necessity.
As Graham (2000) states, “The important point is to not be rigid about what you can and
cannot do in case studies. If one kind of evidence is relevant, or could be of value, you
use it” (p. 61). In this particular case study, there were several forms of evidence
employed ranging from the formal court record and clinical evaluations, to television
interviews with family members, to old books and newspaper articles that were relevant
in their own right, and despite the fact that the personal interview could not be employed,
!63
a comprehensive case study was created nonetheless. The ability to access records of a
case that was covered so intensely, and yet, so myopically, presented many challenges,
with the greatest being discerning the accurate from the inaccurate. Enough material was
available to make this possible, however, and was checked and cross-checked to
determine accuracy.
Future research could be expanded through the use of personal interviews of
persons involved with the case in order to further examine their perspectives and
recollections of the case. While this would be interesting, the impact of time on memory
would have to be taken into consideration, and these interviews could merely be used to
enhance the archival record versus exist as part of the archival case study per se. As long
as his current treatment plan remains, however, Mr. Hinckley could not be part of the
interview process.
Participants
This dissertation did not require the use of human subjects. No interviews of
individuals took place. A waiver of SIRB is featured as Appendix A.
Design and Materials
Research was based upon the archival documents that exist in the United States
Federal Court system addressing the trial and subsequent clinical assessments of John W.
Hinckley, which included testimony from treating clinicians. Additionally, works that
cited other disclosed material relevant to the examination of Mr. Hinckley's reactions to
Taxi driver and The Beatles informing the influence of the film and the band,
respectively, were accessed. Interviews with John, Sr., and Jo Ann Hinckley (parents of
!64
John Hinckley, Jr.) were reviewed, along with countless newspaper and magazine articles
published around the time of the assassination attempt. Examination of these data
sources was further integrated with the use of psychological texts and the Diagnostic
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM 5), along with legal, philosophical,
and cultural reaction to the presentation of Mr. Hinckley at various times during his
personal history of involvement in the mental health system.
Procedure
Archives of the United States Federal Court system were accessed and all of the
documents that comprise the record surrounding the case of the United States of America
v. John Warnock Hinckley, Jr. (1982), were examined. These records included not only
transcripts of trials, but thousands of pages of evaluative reports gathered by experts for
both the prosecution and defense that have informed findings in Mr. Hinckley's initial
trial and in his many appearances before the court requesting greater freedoms over the
past 34 years. Records released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United
States Secret Service have also been examined. Further analysis of Mr. Hinckley's life
and case through a myriad of texts, creative works, and recorded interviews were
examined and incorporated in this research in order to evaluate the full context of
Hinckley's life and times, from the prenatal period through the present. Yin (2009)
stresses the significance of careful documentation of data sources, and the maintenance of
the chain of evidence from which that data is acquired, ensuring research validity in the
event that the replication of research is attempted. Given the research in this dissertation
!65
surrounding Mr. Hinckley was intended to be exhaustive in its scope, thorough
documentation was employed to ensure future validity and reliability.
Data Analysis Methods
Content analysis was conducted on all data accumulated for this dissertation, with
emphasis placed on noting the presence or absence of any behavioral patterns that
emerged in Mr. Hinckley’s known behavioral record. In this dissertation, the full body of
this exhaustive case study research has been painstakingly compiled and organized in
order to present a comprehensive psycho-historical case study of the life and times of
John W. Hinckley, Jr. Additionally, data about Mr. Hinckley was compared and contrasted
with data gathered about other similar cases, including those of the other three living
attempted assassins of political figures (Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore,
and Arthur Bremer), Mark David Chapman (murderer of John Lennon) as well as other,
lesser-known individuals who have been subject to involuntary commitment as a result of
being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Analysis was also conducted on accounts of relationships with family members,
clinicians, girlfriends, and others with whom Hinckley is known to have associated. An
analysis of these relationships was undertaken from developmental, interpersonal,
humanistic, and psychoanalytical perspectives in order to better understand their
influence.
!66
Chapter 4: Results/Findings
Introduction
This chapter contains the psycho-historical archival research data that has been
gathered for the purpose of examining the case of John W. Hinckley, Jr. The findings
have been chronologically ordered in this chapter for the purpose of establishing a clear
timeline and for ease of reference.
Origins
Mother. Jo Ann Moore was born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in 1927. From
childhood, her friends and family knew her by the nickname, Jodie. She met John
Hinckley, Sr. (known as Jack) when he was a young Naval officer playing drums in his
free time for a dance band at a local social event (J. Hinckley, Hinckley, & Sherrill, 1985,
p. 37). Their courtship was idyllic, and they married a few years after meeting, launching
into their married life with the plan that Jack would eventually leave his military career
and delve into the oil business, while concurrently starting a family. Jo Ann loved being
a wife, and was excited to start a family. In 1950, the couple welcomed their first son,
Scott, and three years later had a daughter, Diane. Two years later in 1955, the couple
completed their family with the birth of John. Their marriage, by all accounts, was a
happy and stable one as their children grew, and they met the challenges of the oil
business with a commitment to succeed. Then-Jodie Hinckley relished her role as wife
and mother, and took moving the family from Oklahoma to Dallas as Jack’s oil business
took form in relative stride, despite some experiencing some significant initial bouts of
panic and anxiety.
!67
Father. John Hinckley, Sr., (known as Jack) was born on June 6, 1925, in Tryon,
North Carolina, and was raised in Tulsa, Oklahoma, following the death of his father in
1927. At the time of his own death in 2008, he had been married to his “college
sweetheart,” Jo Ann Moore Hinckley, for 61 years (Nelsen Funeral Home, 2008). John,
Sr., had grown up primarily with his mother, who remarried, and his half-sister, Avila
Bates. His mother remarried a man named Kib Brooks to whom he never grew
particularly close.
In 1942, during World War II, and a full year before he was scheduled to graduate
from high school, Jack Hinckley, an ambitious, model student, entered an accelerated
military officer training school. Within three years, he had not only completed both high
school and college with a degree in mechanical engineering, but had received an officer’s
commission in the United States Navy (Brakel & Brooks, 2001). Hard, exhaustive work,
and tireless ambition were the essence of life for Jack Hinckley, from his earliest
endeavors as a boy who had lost his father at 2-years-old, but had managed to excel in
school, to his years as a young man going through officer training, and later, through his
career as an independent oil executive. So driven was Jack Hinckley, that in addition to
his early educational and career accomplishments, he was able to indulge his love of
music, moonlighting as the drummer in a dance band while serving in the Navy. This
extracurricular pursuit enabled him to meet the young woman who would become his
wife, Jo Ann (Jodie) Moore. They married on Christmas Eve in 1946. During their first
five years of marriage that followed his separation from military service, Jack and Jo Ann
moved 14 times as he attempted to build a career in the oil industry, prior to the birth of
!68
their oldest son, Scott (Clarke, 1990, p. 16).
As a result of his own identification as a young man who possessed a strong and
aggressive work ethic and hearty sense of independence, Jack Hinckley had a great deal
of difficulty understanding the clingy and often-unmotivated John from his earliest days.
Early Life
John W. Hinckley, Jr., was born on May 29, 1955, in Ardmore, Oklahoma.
According to his mother, her pregnancy, overall, had been a normal and healthy one;
however, when asked years later by attorneys if anything had happened during that
particular pregnancy that might have distinguished it from her two prior pregnancies (that
resulted in the births of her two older children), she remembered that “the only traumatic
thing I could recall was the fire three months before John was born” (J. Hinckley et al.,
1985, p. 41). While she and the elder Mr. Hinckley were in the process of moving from
one house to another in Oklahoma, a gust of wind blew some wrapping materials over hot
grating. They were away from the house at the time when a neighbor informed them that
their house was on fire. She recalled going into shock at the sight of the devastation, and
worried, thinking, “the emotional trauma of the fire might somehow damage the baby I
was carrying” (Capps, 2013; J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 41).
She also recalled that a brand new hospital in Ardmore, Oklahoma, was set to
open on May 30, 1955. Recognition and gifts were to be granted to the first mother who
delivered her baby in the new maternity wing, and Jo Ann was optimistic that she could
be that mother. She later recalled, “we had as good a chance as any of being the fortunate
family, but John arrived at 11:29 p.m. on May 29” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 41). John
!69
was born too early for her to be admitted initially to the new hospital, but he and Jo Ann
were transferred there two days after his birth. Jo Ann wondered if because he “had been
exposed to the outside world in that brief car trip, (and because) he was not placed in the
nursery with the other newborns, but in a little room by himself” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985,
p. 41), that subconscious trauma may have been a resulting occurrence. In recalling
young John’s emergence into the world and the activities of the immediate days that
followed, she mused that perhaps, “this isolation had been somehow symbolic” (Capps,
2013; J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 42).
Although all three of her children came into the world seemingly healthy, Jo Ann
recalled that John was by far the most shy of the three and had been the most clingy,
especially during his toddler years. This clinging was constant, and continued throughout
his early childhood. He rarely liked to be out of her sight as a toddler, and would often
grab onto her leg, reluctant to let go. One particular day, while shopping with her own
mother when John was 4-years-old, she recalled that he was so clingy and reluctant to be
physically separate from her that her own mother remarked, “That’s one child you’ll
never have to worry about losing in a crowd” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 42)! While she
found this behavior markedly different than that of her older two children, she did not
find it particularly disturbing or of great concern. Rather, she was actually somewhat
relieved, expressing that with “two lively older children to keep track of, I was grateful
that my third was such a stay-at-home” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 42).
While his entire family collectively acknowledged that he was the shyest and
most clingy of his sibship, the elder John Hinckley (Jack) was especially confused by
!70
John’s early attachment to his mother. His clinginess seemed excessive to his father from
its earliest origins. John seemed to considerably prefer the company of his mother to that
of his father or siblings, and clung to her more than his siblings had from the time he was
a toddler. Although this confused his father, Jack Hinckley dismissed it, believing that
his preference stemmed from the fact that he (Jack) was busy trying to establish a
foothold in the oil business from the time John was born, and thus, was away from home
for business travel on numerous occasions.
Jack Hinckley later recalled having been far easier on John than on his elder son,
Scott, during their formative years. He recalled the vast differences in the way he dealt
with his two sons, remembering, “I’d been far more demanding with Scott. Scolded him,
spanked him a lot more often…I hadn’t been half as tough on John…About the only
thing I ever recall reprimanding John for was playing his phonograph too loud” (Clarke,
1990, p. 24).
In 1959, the Hinckley family moved from Oklahoma to the Highland Park suburb
of Dallas, where they lived “in a community known as ‘The Bubble’” (Henry & Brown,
1981), where John was to spend the majority of his formative years. Moving away from
all she had ever known was tremendously challenging for Jo Ann, and while never
formally psychiatrically diagnosed, she self-reportedly experienced many symptoms of
social and/or generalized anxiety disorder immediately following this move, which
specifically took the form of panic attacks and agoraphobic tendencies (J. Hinckley et al.,
1985, p. 46). In reaction to Jo Ann’s panic attacks, Jack Hinckley routinely became
!71
exasperated and in these situations, “alarm would lead but fade quickly as impatience
closed in, only to be overtaken by disgust” (Clarke, 1990, p. 20).
As Jo Ann suffered, unsupported by her husband, “She spent a lot of time just
crying,” and “it was the youngest, John, who was there alone with her all day long,
absorbing her fears and anxieties - and resenting his father’s disdain during those rare
evenings when he was home” (Clarke, 1990, p. 20). Within a few short months following
the move, however, she was eventually able to successfully adapt to life in Dallas and
began to truly enjoy her new surroundings, joining a bridge club, the ladies altar guild at
her church, and getting routinely involved in her three children’s schools.
Jo Ann was known by her family and close friends as “Jodie” until after the
assassination attempt when that nickname no longer seemed appropriate. Then-Jodie
Hinckley flourished in her role as wife and mother; so much so, that she later recalled her
satisfaction with the years of her marriage prior to the assassination attempt in stating,
“How many shirts I pressed in thirty-four years of marriage, and every one with pride” (J.
Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 11), and “ I couldn’t have asked for a better life, or a finer
husband or more beautiful, well-behaved children” (Grove, 1985).
Life in Highland Park seemed to suit the Hinckley family well. So well, in fact,
that Jack Hinckley put forth a greater effort to connect with John, going so far as to
participate in a father/son program called the Indian Guides at the local YMCA. Their
meetings basically involved fathers and sons sitting in a campfire circle singing songs
and doing crafts, with the goals of having fun and becoming closer. Unfortunately, the
!72
Indian Guides participation did little to fuel the relationship between the elder and the
lesser John Hinckley (Clarke, 1990, p. 34).
According to an article in The Washington Post, that was published a week after
the assassination attempt, Pastor Charles V. Westapher, of St. Michael and All Angels
Episcopal Church in Dallas, Texas, remembered the elder Hinckley and his wife as
prominent church members:
“I don’t think they ever missed a Sunday," further stating, "The
Hinckleys fit into the pattern of the parish- Redneck Republican,
ultraconservative, as I am. A solid family. I can see them in my mind’s
eye standing there with their children around them. There was nothing
outstanding about John Jr. He wasn't an outstanding achiever. He was
not in trouble. He just fades into the mist of time.” (Henry & Brown,
1981)
According to an article by Donald Capps (2013), young John, “mentioned to the
psychiatrists at St. Elizabeths that by the time he was six or seven he felt that he was
different from the other children and adults around him and that he felt he had a ‘special
destiny’” (p. 252). This self-reporting was most ironic, as young John was not perceived
by anyone as outside of the typical developmental parameters, let alone as a child
convicted of his own special destiny. As a child, John was known to be considerably
more shy and less social than his older siblings, Scott and Diane, who were five and three
years older, respectively. According to childhood neighbors, “The other kids would
always talk more than him,” and “he was normal - ‘nobody paid any attention to
him’” (Henry & Brown, 1981). This assessment of young Mr. Hinckley is not
consistently maintained throughout the record of his youth that exists, however.
According to Jim Francis, his basketball coach from the fourth through sixth grades,
!73
he was a beautiful looking blond-headed little boy, a wonderful athlete. I don’t
know what may have happened to him since then, but he was really a leader. He
was one of the best athletes on the team and the best basketball player. (Lubbock
Avalanche-Journal, 2009)
According to John himself and members of his immediate family, he was, like
many American children, smitten with the Beatles from their earliest appearance on the
Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964. At that time, John was 9-years-old, just shy of
his 10th birthday, but his older siblings, Scott and Diane, had already been exposed to the
promotion preceding the Beatles first appearance on American television, and watched
their appearance with enthusiastic anticipation, their parents all the while aghast. Young
John was mesmerized, and became an instant Beatles devotee (J. Hinckley et al., 1985;
Montobalo, 2011). While his parents never understood the appeal of The Beatles or any
of the rock or folk artists who emerged from the 1960s onward, they were open to
allowing their children to enjoy their music. As soon as John was able to save money for
his own purchases, he was intent on collecting every Beatles album and 45rpm, every
magazine that featured The Beatles, and every book he could afford that described the
personal lives of the band members. By the time he was 14, he had selected a clear,
favorite Beatle - John Lennon - who inspired him to take up playing the guitar and to
compose songs.
When parents Jack Hinckley and Jo Ann Hinckley published Breaking Points in
1985, they described their son, John, as a normal, athletic, and popular child during his
childhood and throughout high school, although they began to perceive him as more
reclusive, with all other positive presenting behavioral factors remaining consistent.
!74
The Teenaged Years
In the 1973 Highland Park High School yearbook, The Highlander, John
Hinckley listed his extracurricular activities as Spanish Club, Rodeo Club, and Students
in Government. The record is conflicted regarding Mr. Hinckley’s behavior during those
years. The sponsor of the Rodeo Club, Bill Lierman, remembered Hinckley as,
likeable, laughable, cutting up all the time. I’m sure he had girlfriends, but I never
saw any of them. He was a very nice looking young fellow. If he did have a
temper, he didn’t display it at all. It seemed like he liked everybody. (Lubbock
Avalanche-Journal, 2009)
Mr. Lierman’s recollection of John’s years throughout early high school, at least,
seems in keeping with the fact that he experienced many of the same successes as his
older siblings during that time. He was the president of his 7th- and 9th-grade classes,
was the manager of the high school basketball team (though he notably did not participate
as a player despite earlier reports that he excelled on the court), and had many friends, or
at least friendly schoolmates. There was nothing about this period of his young life that
suggested a need for alarm on part of his parents, although they did consider him to be
something of a late-bloomer in terms of dating and socializing. Jo Ann, however,
attributed much of this to his especially unfortunate case of teenaged acne (J. Hinckley et
al., 1985, p. 50).
Although all immediate Hinckley family members remembered teenaged John
spending many hours alone in his room listening to The Beatles during the years he was
in high school, his mother recalled that she and other mothers would discuss the “baffling
appeal of rock music” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 50), but never felt John was influenced
!75
in a way that was outside of a very normal teenage paradigm. In fact, Jo Ann expressed
that his behavior throughout adolescence was characterized by a pronounced "absence of
trouble" (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 70), and she recalling feeling pleased and relieved
that her son was not involved in illicit drug use, promiscuous sexual behavior, or
criminality of any sort.
One pronounced experience of John Hinckley’s high school years was his social
standing as influenced by the popularity of his older siblings, Scott and Diane. John’s
older sister, Diane, was a very popular student in high school who was a lead cheerleader
and homecoming court member. She went on to graduate from Southern Methodist
University, then married a young insurance salesman named Stephen Sims in 1974, and
subsequently bore a son named Christopher the next year, to whom John was very
attached. When Hinckley’s belongings at the time of arrest were examined, a photograph
of young Christopher was among them. No other family photographs or effects were
discovered in his possession.
A high school classmate recalled, ''if I saw him, I'd know him,'' said Paul Gleiser,
a high school peer who easily recalled his older sister, Diane Hinckley, the cheerleader
who was voted one of the eight outstanding seniors in 1971. Gleiser further commented,
’'I would think or say, 'That's John Hinckley, that's Diane's brother.' Everybody knew his
sister real well, but not him’" (Clines, 1981).
Hinckley’s older brother (by five years), Scott, had left home to attend Vanderbilt
University before John started high school. Scott, like Diane, was also a popular high-
achiever, who went on to graduate from Vanderbilt University with the ambition to later
!76
join his father in the oil business. Scott Hinckley was the closest to his father, and like
his father, viewed John as immature and somewhat lazy. While Jack Hinckley and Scott
had a close relationship, sharing many of the same interests, neither Jack nor Scott were
known to be close to John during his high school years. Both found the younger John to
be distant and confusing, though neither perceived this behavior as psychiatrically
troubling during these particular years.
Jack Hinckley, however, found himself in a perpetual state of annoyance with
John during the high-school period. He believed Jo Ann coddled young John, and that
young John manipulated his mother. Jo Ann was aware that John was not separating
from his parents in a normal way, but felt that Jack was far too harsh and demanding on
their son, making matters worse. Dinners between the three were often spent in
uncomfortable silence or ended in arguments, many of which she viewed as having
started due to Jack’s harsh words and frequent interrogations of young John. Although
she often tried to ignore the unfortunate father and son dynamics,
she was well aware that Jack considered their son an unwelcome intruder in the
house, an annoying rival for her attention. At times she felt she was being forced
by both her husband and her son to make a choice: one or the other. (Clarke,
1990, pp. 25-26)
This situation created a relationship characterized by interactions between mother and
son that were hidden from Jack. According to Clarke (1990), “by the time Hinckley
graduated from high school in 1973, his sulking dependence on his mother had become
not only an embarrassment, especially to his father, but also the source of great strains on
his parents’ marriage” (p. 26).
!77
Texas Tech
In the fall of 1973, following high school graduation, John Hinckley enrolled in
college at Texas Tech, “an engineering-oriented university that accepts 99 percent of its
applicants” (Henry & Brown, 1981). By the time John Hinckley entered college and
moved from Colorado to Lubbock, his parents had observed more noticeable changes in
his demeanor. Primarily, they noticed that he had become exceedingly lethargic. Of
additional concern was his lack of desire to socialize or make friends. His father reported
perceiving this behavior as pure laziness, and attributed it to late-onset teenaged angst,
and hoped desperately that perhaps attendance at Texas Tech would remedy some of this
troubling behavior.
From the beginning of his enrollment, there were constant obstacles to his
adjustment - three roommate changes in his first year for trivial reasons, and an ever-
increasing list of somatic complaints he continually presented to his parents,
accompanied by endless requests to go home and see the family doctor. John had rejected
his first three roommates in quick succession: One for studying too late into the night,
one for being African-American, and one for being too “countrified” (J. Hinckley et al.,
1985, p. 70). Years later, following the assassination attempt, local merchants in the
Lubbock area surrounding the college recalled Hinckley as a solitary figure, walking into
town daily for late morning breakfasts consisting of large bags of cheeseburgers while at
Texas Tech. “There goes old Hinky-Dinky,” was the typical reaction of his merchant
observers (Henry & Brown, 1981).
From 1974 through 1976, less a semester during which he withdrew from classes
!78
and spent several months in Dallas living near his sister, Diane, and her family while
working at a pizzeria, John lived alone in a string of rented apartments near campus. His
history professor, Joseph King, recalled his demeanor in the classroom as unusual, and
expressed that, “while everyone else in class exhibited a kind of camaraderie, he always
sat alone, surrounded by empty chairs,” and that, “even during humorous moments, he
continued to gaze at me attentively, taking notes” (Henry & Brown, 1981). Professor
King did, however, recall Hinckley as a conscientious student, who received good grades
in his class, with an outstanding paper on Nazi Germany being particularly memorable.
While Professor King’s recollection lends a glimpse into John’s difficulty
interacting socially with his classmates, remarks from the maintenance man at one of his
off-campus apartments addressed his increasingly odd affect in more specific terms.
Calvin Wynne saw Mr. Hinckley frequently, and perhaps because of his own outgoing
nature, had attempted to converse with him on several occasions. Mr. Wynne stated that,
“His attitude and personality were strained,” and that
it seemed as though he had something on his mind. He wanted to talk
about it, it seemed he wanted to find someone to tell it to. There was a
nervousness about him. Hyperactive, is that what you call it? He
moved a lot. He got more anxious, more hyper as the conversation
wore on, like he wanted to do something about it. (Henry & Brown,
1981)
As the young Hinckley progressed tenuously through his seven years on and off at
Texas Tech, indications of his maladjustment became increasingly apparent and constant.
His behavior became progressively more troubling to his family during his years at
college, and his complaints of various health problems and periods of erratic travel,
!79
usually to California, became more and more pervasive through 1980. By 1976, John
Hinckley expressed constant somatic concerns. He had gained nearly 40 pounds between
1975 and 1976, at one point weighing 250 pounds, and had a constant myriad of on-going
health issues, including pain throughout his body, numbness in his extremities, dizziness,
and severe sinus issues (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 104). During the mid-1970s, it is
known that John was also “under the care of a general practitioner in Lubbock, Dr.
Baruch Rosen,” and “it was confirmed that Mr. Hinckley had filled prescriptions for two
types of antidepressants, 71 tablets of Valium and 18 tablets of Surmontil, at F.B.
Christensen's pharmacy near the Texas Tech campus” (Clines, 1981).
While letters and phone calls home came with great frequency, a letter sent to his
parents in April of 1976, was of particular concern. In it, he wrote:
Dear Mom and Dad,
By the time you receive this letter, I will no longer be in Lubbock. I have
dropped out of school. I know you’ll never understand, but I’m too
miserable here to take it any longer. I honestly won’t blame you if you get
mad and cut me off….I’m sorry I’m doing this to you…I only hope
someday I can make you proud of me.
Love,
John (Clarke, 1990, pp. 30-31)
Contrary to his usual behavior, John went an entire month without contacting his
parents or revealing his whereabouts to them. Finally, a Mother’s Day card that featured
a cartoon skunk calling himself “a little stinker” arrived. In it, he revealed that he had
taken a room in Los Angeles, centrally located among the offices of many major record
labels. He expressed that he was going to pursue a career as a singer/songwriter. While
!80
he had never received any formal musical training whatsoever, and despite the fact that
he had never played a chord or sung a note in front of his family or any audience, his
parents were cautiously yet optimistically supportive, as young Hinckley’s prevailing
interest since his early teenaged years was music, specifically playing the guitar along
with Beatles albums, albeit confined to his bedroom behind a closed door. They were
relieved that he had found an interest in something that caused him to take initiative.
Two and a half weeks later, their joy was somewhat mired upon receipt of the next letter.
In it, John stated that he had been robbed, lost all of his money, and had been forced to
ask strangers for money to eat. A request for financial assistance was included. He
expressed that, while compromised, he had not given up his dream. His parents
responded by wiring money immediately.
In July, he wrote home with news of a having developed a contact who was
supporting him in a possible record deal with United Artists. He also informed his
parents that he had met a young woman named Lynn Collins who had become his
girlfriend. Although his mother, Jo Ann, had been concerned about his decision to leave
school and move abruptly, she was completely supportive of his desire to go out into the
world in order to seek fame and fortune. She was encouraged when he reported home
about alleged prospects for his songs to be picked up by major labels, but was even more
excited when he wrote to tell her about meeting a girl in a laundry mat. As far as she
knew, Lynn Collins was his first girlfriend. Unfortunately, Jo Ann Hinckley, during the
trial, was to learn that during the 1976 period in which John had so often and so
passionately spoken of and written home about his beautiful actress-girlfriend in
!81
California, that Lynn Collins was a manufactured character who had never actually
existed.
By September, John was tired of Los Angeles and wrote home about recurring
somatic complaints, including a new one: “severe eye sting attacks” (Clarke, 1990, p. 33).
He informed his parents that he had been dumped by both his potential record label and
his girlfriend, the non-existent Lynn Collins. He then expressed that he wanted to return
to their home in Evergreen, Colorado, to which they had moved shortly after he began
college at Texas Tech. Suffice it to say, they wired him money for a plane ticket home.
Once he arrived back in Evergreen, his father insisted that he find work. Because
John did not like to drive at night or in traffic, his mother drove him on the hour-long trek
back and forth to Denver to apply for jobs. He finally gained employment at a nightclub
his parents had visited and where his father had done the groundwork, recommending
him for a job as a busboy. Because of his lack of incentive with regard to driving, his
father had him take a room at a hotel across the street from the club. It is known that Jo
Ann Hinckley “dropped by regularly to keep her chubby son supplied in cookies and
casseroles, feeling bad every time she looked at his only companion in the dingy room, a
small black and white TV” (Clarke, 1990, p. 34).
His job as a busboy lasted an approximate five months. Court records, personal
accounts, and other texts all state that it is unclear whether he was fired or quit. In any
case, he was home by December with a plan to stay at the family home through the
holidays and to return to Texas Tech in 1977, when the spring semester commenced.
By his visit home for the Christmas holiday in 1976, his fascination with the film,
!82
Taxi Driver, had started to influence his choices. By the end of 1976, he had seen the
movie over (an approximated) 25 times, and had taken to wearing combat fatigue jackets,
pull-on black leather boots, and green-tinted sunglasses, similar to those worn by Robert
DeNiro in the film as its main character, Travis Bickle. During the holiday break,
Hinckley requested that his mother purchase peach brandy for him to drink, the same
drink-of-choice as DeNiro’s Travis Bickle character. His mother later recalled that he
drank only an ounce or two over his several weeks at home, generally taking it to his
room in the evening and returning it in the morning, barely touched; immediately
reaching for the apple juice she usually kept on hand for him (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p.
107).
Over the holidays, Hinckley encountered his siblings, Scott and Diane. While
John did have a relationship with his siblings that was, by all accounts, cordial and
caring, it was not exceedingly close. At one point in the fall of 1975, Scott Hinckley, in a
well-intended attempt to bond with his brother, went so far as to fix up and give his used
Camaro to John, while he was a student at Texas Tech. Scott had used his own money to
replace the worn tires on the car, and was deeply hurt and angered when John sold the car
on one of his jaunts to Los Angeles, without so much as informing Scott of his intentions
(J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 79). Hinckley spent very little time with Scott, seeing him
mainly at family events. While he did spend more time with his sister, Diane, he seemed
to be more interested in bonding with her toddler son, Christopher. The impact of that
bonding was noted during court testimony in 1982, when Diane testified about the love
and care John had shown for her son and he reportedly, “drew his hand up to his face and
!83
rubbed his eyes” (Kiernan, 1982).
Although Hinckley did return to Texas Tech as scheduled, after three years of
unsteady attendance, he again abandoned his studies once more with the alleged intention
of establishing a career as a singer/songwriter in Los Angeles. Years later in court
testimony, his sister was to reveal that despite the family’s collective skepticism around
his endeavors, they were not willing to dismiss his desire to pursue a career in
Hollywood, with the collective hope that Hinckley might have been “the next Barry
Manilow” (Kiernan, 1982).
Much like the Travis Bickle character in the film, Taxi Driver, had written home
to his parents about a rich and beautiful girlfriend, John had written home about a
fictitious girl he called Lynn Collins, speaking of vacations, adventures, and arguments
that had never actually occurred. Lynn Collins was a product of Mr. Hinckley’s false
accounting of his own experiences during his absences from home. He would often times
imply that Lynn may have been the reason for his abrupt movements and actions. Sadly,
Jo Ann Hinckley had come to believe in Lynn’s influence over John and the reality of
their relationship after such a long period of corresponding about her with John, that she
was utterly devastated and shocked when the FBI revealed to her that Lynn Collins had
never existed. Jo Ann was especially saddened when she realized that without Lynn
Collins in his life, there was not one person she could think of with whom John had had
any kind of relationship with in many, many years (Linder, 2009).
On four occasions between January 1978, to July 29, 1980, Don Barrett, the
manager of an appliance rental store in Lubbock, rented Hinckley a television set.
!84
According to Henry and Brown (1981), “Barrett said Hinckley had been in the office
dozens of times, either renting or making his payments,” and that “twice, Barrett said, he
visited Hinckley's apartment to deliver televisions, and found that the student had no
silverware, little furniture and nothing on the walls of his room” (Clines, 1981).
John Hinckley was not known by his family to speak of friends or girlfriends
(other than the fictional Lynn Collins), or of any social activity outside of class
attendance or doctor visits during his seven years on and off at Texas Tech. What is
known, however, is that in August 1979, Hinckley bought his first gun, a .22 caliber, at
the Galaxy Pawn Shop in Lubbock, and began target shooting.
During Hinckley’s last prolonged stay in the home of his parents after returning
from his last brief stint in Los Angeles during which he allegedly attempted and failed as
a songwriter once again, his father, Jack, expressed concern for his son’s increasingly
lethargic state and social withdrawal. In the 1985 book, Breaking Points, the elder
Hinckley recalls John moping around his bedroom, “listening to old Beatles records and
playing with the cat” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 8), and as having spent, “countless
hours listening to his Beatles records, strumming his guitar” (Walters, 1985). During this
same period, his mother remembered him spending most nights in his room
“alone...listening to those awful Beatles records” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 50).
When visiting the family home, the Hinckley family cats, Titter and Hunk, were
John’s most frequent and closest companions. All family members recalled his caring
behavior and exhibition of appropriate affect being confined to interactions with his
toddler nephew, Christopher, and his feline companions.
!85
Taxi Driver
You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Well, who
the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well, I'm the
only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talkin' to? (Travis
Bickle in Taxi Driver; Schrader & Scorcese, 1976)
Mr. Hinckley’s life, as of 1980 when he left Texas Tech, had been strongly
influenced by the film, Taxi driver; a film he reported seeing at least 25 times in the
theatre following its initial release. The film revolved around the story of Travis Bickle,
a Vietnam Marine veteran portrayed by Robert DeNiro, who suffered from insomnia so
severe that it prompted him to take a job as a New York City cab driver who did not mind
driving overnight and into the most dangerous and seedy areas of the city. Bickle kept a
diary in the style of Arthur Bremer, and was an unapologetic loner with poor social skills
and a habit of viewing pornography. He met a woman named Betsy, played by Cybill
Shepard, who worked for a presidential candidate. He was able to convince her to go on
a date with him, but took her to a pornographic film, during which she rejected him,
appalled, and left. He then decided to get into shape and armed himself, determined that
assassinating the presidential candidate that she worked for would surely gain him the
fame (or the lack of anonymity) he truly desired. Although he stalked the candidate at a
rally, he was spotted by security as suspicious and quickly aborted his plan.
Shortly thereafter, he had a brief encounter with a 12-year-old prostitute named
Iris, portrayed by a then-13-year-old Jodie Foster, trying to escape her pimp. Bickle
shifted his obsession from assassination attempt to Iris, hoping to help her escape from
her pimp and return home to her family. He gave money to her pimp to spend time with
!86
her, but was not interested in having sex with her. Rather, he was interested in rescuing
her from a life he believed a horrific fate for such a very young girl.
As the film concluded, Bickle heavily armed himself and burst into the brothel in
which Iris worked. A bloodbath ensued, with Bickle being wounded, and Iris’s pimp and
others being killed at his hand. In the infamous finale, when police stormed the brothel,
Bickle placed his fingers at his temple, as if holding a loaded gun, and emulated the
sound of a shot. In the film’s five minute epilogue, it appeared that Bickle was lauded as
a hero, named in headlines of papers throughout the city, and received a letter of thanks
from Iris’s family. At the very end of the film, Betsy reappeared as a fare in his cab who
commended him. He let her out of his cab at no charge, and looked, tentatively, into his
rearview mirror as the screen fades (Schrader & Scorcese, 1976).
Debate among viewers and film critics continues to exist regarding the epilogue
sequence : Were these the visions of a madman? Had Bickle died in the firefight? Was
this the genuine aftermath? As in many good works of fiction, that decision is left to the
viewer. Clearly, whatever determination, this film and its ending were compelling
enough to John Hinckley that he had adopted some of the outward appearances of Travis
Bickle, and a had developed a growing deep interest in the prepubescent Jodie Foster
following his repeated viewings of the film.
New Haven
You know a few things about me, dear sweetheart
Like my obsession with fantasy
But what the rabble don’t yet understand
Is that fantasies become reality in my world. (from Prince Valium, a poem by
Hinckley as cited in United States v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982)
!87
Jodie Foster was 13-years-old when she starred as 12-year-old prostitute, Iris, in
the film, Taxi Driver. Although this role was an acting coup for the young Ms. Foster,
she continued to work in Hollywood through her high school years, taking a variety of
roles in films of different genres, and was frequently featured in magazines aimed at a
teenaged fan base. Mr. Hinckley, a man nearing his mid-20s, followed many of these
articles about Ms. Foster as she grew from a prepubescent girl into a young woman. His
interest was dramatically triggered in 1980, upon learning from an article in the
September 20, 1980 edition of People magazine that she was leaving the acting life in
California after finishing high school to pursue a bachelors degree at Yale University in
New Haven, Connecticut. It is significant to note that Hinckley had not been collecting
Jodie Foster paraphernalia, had not been intensely following her career, or had not been
writing considerably about her in the 4-plus-year gap between the release of Taxi Driver
and his 1980 reading of the magazine article.
By the time Ms. Foster began her studies at Yale, John Hinckley was continuing,
in terms of wardrobe choice at least, with his adopted outward traits of Robert DeNiro as
Travis Bickle, and in response to his renewed interest in Ms. Foster, had decided to go to
New Haven to pursue her, with the hopes of meeting her and establishing a romantic
relationship after abandoning his studies at Texas Tech for non-payment of student fees
during the summer semester of 1980.
John Hinckley devised a plan of action following his departure from Texas Tech
with the goal of pursuing and wooing Ms. Foster. When Hinckley enthusiastically
!88
approached his parents and asked for $3600, with the expressed goal of attending a
semester-long writing course at Yale, his parents happily agreed to finance his endeavor.
At no point did his parents, family, or his family doctor recognize that he was in hot
pursuit of Jodie Foster as an object of his inappropriate interest. His parents were, in fact,
encouraged by his desire to do something - anything - that furthered his career pursuit as
a writer (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 130). This writing course, like girlfriend Lynn
Collins, did not actually exist.
In later courtroom testimony, when asked about his family’s willingness to
finance Mr. Hinckley’s attendance in the writing program at Yale despite his lack of
success in all things of that date, his brother, Scott Hinckley, said the family considered
John's attendance in the (fictional) writing program at Yale as "a heck of a way for him to
get on the right track and help him lead a more productive life” (United States of America
v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982). According to Clarke (1990), Hinckley “arrived in New
Haven on September 17, 1980” (p. 38). His stay was shockingly short, however, even
with his past precedents. Hinckley almost immediately expressed disdain for New Haven
and was tentative in approaching Jodie Foster. According to Caplan (1984), “On the
19th, he wrote his sister and brother-in-law: ‘The students dress like total slobs. I’m
going to NYC for the weekend. Classes at Yale are still up in the air. Is anything sacred
anymore” (p. 38)?
While in New Haven, Hinckley lurked around Jodie Foster’s dormitory, though he
never approached her in person to introduce himself. He did, however, slip notes under
the door of her room, which evolved from annoying and unwarranted expressions of
!89
affection to notes so pronounced in their level of passive-aggressive (but not outright)
threat, that Ms. Foster presented them to the dean of her school in hopes of guidance as to
handling them. Also, Hinckley called her room twice during that time, actually speaking
to her. She told him that she could not speak with people she did not know because it
could be dangerous, to which he responded, “I’m not dangerous” (CNN, 2013).
The young people who shared Ms. Foster’s dormitory observed John Hinckley’s
comings and goings to the extent that his leering and peculiar presence led them to refer
to him as, “Mr. Toxic Shock.” A bartender at the Top of the Park bar was to later recall
an afternoon during which Hinckley spent three hours drinking and talking about his
girlfriend, Jodie Foster (Henry & Brown, 1981). While Hinckley had a presence at Yale
that was perceivable by random collegians, his presence and love notes were still
pronounced to the extent that they were of concern to faculty and students at the
university: “Around the same time, the FBI warned her (Ms. Foster) of a kidnapping
threat linked (eventually) to Hinckley” (Clarke, 1990, p. 39). Hinckley only stayed in
Connecticut for four days before returning home to Colorado, though he would make his
way through New Haven on at least two other occasions prior to the assassination
attempt. By the 27th, he was on a flight to Washington D.C. By the 30th, he was in
Dayton, Ohio, awaiting an appearance by then-President Carter, which was to take place
on October 2nd.
A Critical Six Months
Pretend
Pretend you are a virgin on fire
!90
An outcast in the midst of madness
The scion of something unthinkable
Satan’s long lost illegitimate son
A solitary weed among carnations
The last living shit on earth
Dracula on a crowded beach
A child without a home
The loser of a one-man race
Rare meat thrown to a hungry lion
A faded flag on a windy day
Welcome to the truth
Welcome to reality
Welcome to my world. (J. W. Hinckley, n.d.)
In late September 1980, after a mere four days of his pursuit of then-18-year-old
Jodie Foster via his excursion to a non-existent writing course in New Haven, Mr.
Hinckley was back at home with his parents in Evergreen, Colorado. He was expressing
tremendous disdain for all of New Haven stating that the writing workshop was terrible,
the city was dirty and expensive, and that the students were grimy and rude. He then
began seeing the family doctor regularly, complaining of dizziness and a plethora of pain
issues. He was prescribed Valium for his ever-worsening insomnia by the Hinckley
family physician, Dr. Benjamin, an employee of his father’s company. Dr. Benjamin had
previously expressed to the elder Hinckley that he did not believe his son was deeply
troubled but that the younger, “Hinckley was someone who needed to get his shit
together” (Wilber, 2012, p. 146). On October 28, Hinckley took too much Valium and
experienced what was (alleged) to be an accidental potential overdose (J. Hinckley et al.,
1985, pp. 138-140).
Following this episode, Hinckley’s family’s concern had grown so much that he
!91
was in psychotherapy for the very first time with Dr. John Hopper, as a result of his
family’s intervention. While Dr. Hopper found John to be an over-indulged young man,
suffering from nothing more than a sense of entitlement and a lack of motivation, he was
unaware of the unhealthy ideas that were ruminating in Mr. Hinckley’s mind. In later
court testimony, Dr. Hopper would state that he observed him to be in a "pattern of
depression and disillusionment” (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr.,
1982), but did not perceive him as demonstrating any visible signs of mental illness or
dangerousness whatsoever. While seeing Dr. Hopper, however, John travelled to
Lubbock, Texas, in early September, where he “bought a blue steel .38 with a plastic
checker grip from the Galaxy Pawn Shop in Lubbock for $86” (Henry & Brown, 1981).
On September 26, he purchased an additional two .22 caliber handguns at the Snidely
Whiplash Pawn Shop (Clarke, 1990, p. 40).
On October 8, 1980, Hinckley was arrested in a Nashville, Tennessee, airport. He
had attempted to breech security by carrying three guns through the metal detector.
Then-President Jimmy Carter had been in Dayton, Ohio, in the days prior for a rally, and
Hinckley, it was later discovered by federal officials reviewing video of the event, had
been in the crowd stalking him. Video captured of Hinckley in the crowd was later
shown at his trial. According to Caplan (1984), after traveling to Nashville on October 8
for another Carter rally that was to take place the following day,
Hinckley changed his mind about shooting the President and hurried to
catch a flight to New York. Airport guards found three pistols - two
twenty-twos and a thirty-eight-in Hinckley’s suitcase, along with a pair
of handcuffs and a box of Winchester cartridges. He was arrested,
charged with a misdemeanor, and fined sixty-two dollars and fifty
!92
cents. He carried about two thousand dollars in traveler’s checks,
slightly more than half of what he had gathered a few weeks before in
cash and checks.
After holding him for four or five hours, the Nashville police drove
Hinckley back to the airport and he returned to New Haven without his
guns, which the police kept. (pp. 38-39)
After having returned home a few days later, via a side trip to Dallas to visit his
sister, in late November 1980, John Hinckley informed his mother, rather abruptly, that he
needed a break from Colorado and was heading to Washington, D.C. Ironically, it was
during his visit to his sister that, “Hinckley offered her advice about a love-lorn creep
who was pursuing her” (Kiernan, 1982). His mother, Jo Ann, questioned the trip, and his
motives for it, and asked only that he wait until his father returned to Colorado from a
business trip to discuss such a move. He went anyway. Just over a week later, John
Lennon was murdered by Mark David Chapman outside of The Dakota in New York
City. Hinckley’s parents immediately grew deeply concerned and frightened for their
son, who had abruptly left the psychotherapy sessions he had been undergoing, and who
they knew idolized Lennon, above all other members of the band. Hinckley’s mother, Jo
Ann, expressed her abject horror upon hearing of Lennon’s murder, and stated that while,
“Jack and I had never understood the hysteria surrounding The Beatles, John idolized
them, and we knew this would be a bitter blow to him” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 121).
According to Wilber (2011),
In the weeks following Lennon’s death, he was swept up in a tornado
of fantasies that became ever more elaborate and absurd, most of them
involving Jodie Foster. He dreamed of skyjacking an airliner, forcing
Foster to join him, and then compelling Reagan to resign. This
narrative ended with him and Foster living in the White House. He
!93
bought a postcard of the Reagans, on the back of which he jotted:
“Dear Jodie, Don’t they make a darling couple? Nancy is downright
sexy. One day you and I will occupy the White House and the peasants
will drool with envy.” He didn’t send the postcard, but he slipped it
into a book and saved it. (pp. 183-184)
When John Lennon was shot and killed on December 8, 1980, by 25-year-old
gunman, Mark David Chapman, he was struck multiple times in the back as he attempted
to enter his home at The Dakota building on New York City’s Upper West Side after
returning from a recording session at The Record Plant Studio with his wife, Yoko Ono
(Summers & Waldman, 2010). His death had tremendous impact on many people
worldwide, and John W. Hinckley, Jr., was one of them. Although John Lennon was
murdered on December 8, Hinckley did not call his frantically worried family until
December 16. Until that time, they knew he had left Colorado for Washington, D.C., but
were completely unaware of his whereabouts. His mother recalled their conversation as
brief, with its many long, uncomfortable silences, punctuated with John in a sad, quiet,
and weak voice ultimately stating, “Mom, I want to come home” (J. Hinckley et al.,
1985, p. 121).
While Hinckley’s parents could not understand his deep affinity for The Beatles/
John Lennon, they were keenly aware of the impact the murder of John Lennon would
hold for their son. Jo Ann Hinckley stated, “Nothing in his whole life had affected John
as deeply as John Lennon’s death. He’d taken a train from Washington, D.C., to join the
throng of mourner’s outside of Lennon’s New York apartment” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985,
p. 23).
!94
Both of Hinckley’s parents describe the scene picking him up from the airport and
returning him to their home in Evergreen in similar form. John had not contacted them
for a more than a full week following the death of John Lennon, and returned home a
week later, just before Christmas. He walked off the plane, appearing red-eyed and un-
showered, immediately and uncharacteristically forcefully announcing to his father,
“Don’t make any cracks about Lennon...I’m in deep mourning” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985,
p. 122).
So disheveled, lethargic, and nearly catatonic was John that his father thought he
was under the influence of hard drugs and confronted him. The younger Hinckley seemed
hurt by his inquiry, and responded that he was not, with the exception of the Valium he
had been prescribed by his father’s own company physician. So confused and
dumbfounded by the younger Hinckley’s reaction to the death of a person he had never
actually met, his mother later mused, “I almost thought John Lennon had been more real
to him than Jack or I” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 122).
Jo Ann Hinckley’s statement is particularly interesting. John had, according to all
known accounts from family, never been a particularly emotional, or emotionally
expressive person, outside of his sometimes intense passive-aggressive efforts at
manipulation that resulted in his gaining monetary assistance from his parents, which
afforded him the ability to traipse about the country seeking fame, fortune, or the
affection of Jodie Foster. Once Jo Ann and Jack retrieved him from the airport, however,
they noticed severe, troubling changes (in what they already considered to be) his
weakened emotional state. His parents were literally so shocked by his appearance, his
!95
blunted affect, and his utter hopelessness, that they were concerned that he might become
self-injurious during his self-professed period of deep mourning.
Following Hinckley’s December 16 arrival in Colorado just prior to the holidays,
the Hinckleys returned to John's psychotherapist, Dr. John Hopper, with whom they had
been doing family sessions in concert with John’s prescribed biofeedback sessions.
While Dr. Hopper remained intent on establishing a plan with a strict deadline that would
ensure the younger Hinckley’s success through self-sufficiency, his mother remained
strongly resistant, reporting to Hopper her fear that the younger John might be or might
become self-injurious in reaction to his being in continued mourning of the death of John
Lennon (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 127).
Despite his state of mourning, however, Hinckley was off again a short time later.
The holiday season of 1980 was unique, in that it was the first that John spent without his
immediate family. According to Caplan (1984),
At Christmas, Hinckley did not join his family. He told his parents he was going
to New York to sell his novel, allegedly entitled, It’s a mystery to me; instead he
stayed in Lubbock. A picture of Hinckley taken in December shows him
overweight, holding a gun to his temple. (p. 36)
No such novel existed, of course, and Hinckley was off to traipse around the country once
again.
The Hinckley family’s collective concern was not unwarranted, and this became
apparent when federal authorities later discovered a particular cassette tape recording
found in the hotel room of the younger Hinckley following his arrest. It had been
recorded at the Evergreen, Colorado, home of his parents on New Years Eve in 1980, as
!96
Hinckley sat alone in his basement room on one of his neatly made twin beds, sipping the
peach brandy he has requested his mother purchase for his consumption.
John Lennon is dead. The world is over. Forget it. It's just gonna be insanity, if I
even make it through the first few days. . . . I still regret having to go on with
1981 ... I don't know why people wanna live.
John Lennon is dead. . . . I still think-I still think about Jodie all the time.
That's all I think about really. That, and John Lennon's death. They were
sorta binded together. . . . I hate New Haven with a mortal passion. I've
been up there many times, not stalking her really, but just looking after
her. ... I was going to take her away for a while there, but I don't know. I
am so sick I can't even do that. . . . It'll be total suicide city. I mean, I
couldn't care less. Jodie is the only thing that matters now. Anything I
might do in 1981 would be solely for Jodie Foster's sake.
My obsession is Jodie Foster. I've gotta, I've gotta find her and talk to
her some way in person or something. ... That's all I want her to know, is
that I love her. I don't want to hurt her. ... I think I'd rather just see her
not, not on earth, than being with other guys. I wouldn't want to stay
here on earth without her. (United States of America v. John W.
Hinckley, Jr., 1982)
Caplan (1984) later described this monologue as,
a lugubrious, self-conscious rambling, filled with cliches, threats, prissy stand-ins
for obscenities, and dull comments on personal matters. He maundered about
John Lennon and Jodie Foster, insanity and suicide, and always about himself.
The monologue revealed Hinckley as miserable, sad, and wanting. (p. 17)
As the new year commenced, Hinckley continued his biofeedback sessions with
Dr. Hopper, all the while remaining in a blunted, sometimes nearly catatonic state that
was extremely worrisome to his family. While he appeared to be participating as fully as
he could in his therapy, Hinckley’s behavior grew more troublesome. During his trial, it
was revealed that on January 21, 1981, Mr. Hinckley purchased a .38 caliber Charter
Arms handgun (known as a Saturday Night Special and the same type of gun Chapman
!97
had used to shoot Lennon) from Kawasaki West, a Lakeland, Colorado, gun store (United
States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982). The week before Valentine’s Day, he
traveled with his mother to Dallas to visit his brother, Scott, his sister, Diane, and their
respective families. On February 12, he abruptly left the family gathering without
informing his mother or siblings that he was leaving. He traveled to New York City and
spent several hours on February 14 (Valentine’s Day), at the very entrance of The Dakota
where his idol, John Lennon, had been killed three months prior, with that particular
handgun, loaded, in his pocket. He later stated that he had originally intended to commit
suicide at that location as an epic love offering to Jodie Foster. He then traveled to
Washington, D.C., at some point during the remainder of the month and stood outside of
the office of Edward Kennedy, once getting as far as the metal detector to the Senate
office building, contemplating mass murder reminiscent of Puerto Rican nationalists in
1954 (Caplan, 1984; J. Hinckley et al., 1985; United States of America v. John W.
Hinckley, Jr., 1982).
John returned to New York City after his initial suicide and/or homicide plans in
New York and Washington did not come to fruition. His intentions during this stay
abruptly shifted from attempting suicide or homicide to scouring the city in search of
teenaged prostitutes, close to the age of Iris, the 12-year-old character portrayed by Jodie
Foster in the film, Taxi Driver, suggesting that he wished to save them, just as the main
character of Travis Bickle with whom Hinckley (somewhat) identified, had done in the
film. Unlike Bickle, however, court records indicate that Hinckley engaged in sexual
relations with not one, but a known three (at least) real-life child prostitutes as well as a
!98
fourth prostitute, albeit an adult, according to his girlfriend of 16 years, Leslie Deveau
(Walsh, 1999, p. 61), between February 15 and the first week of March 1981, losing his
virginity in the process (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982). He
expressed to one of his therapists that one of the particular prostitutes he had sex with had
resembled Jodie Foster as Iris, and that he returned to find her near the site where he had
originally solicited her services, but could not. In the years that followed after his
commitment to St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital, in addition to clinical staff, he admitted to
his girlfriend, Leslie DeVeau, that, “his sexual experiences had been limited to a few
encounters with prostitutes shortly before the assassination attempt” (Walsh, 1999, p. 61).
Around March 5, 1981, John Hinckley contacted his parents for the first time after
his abrupt disappearance three weeks prior. He stated that he had not eaten for days, had
been allegedly robbed (again), and was living on the street, stranded in New York City.
After making arrangements for him to get a small loan from one of Jack’s business
associates who was in the city at the time, a plane ticket was purchased, and on March 7,
John flew back to Colorado.
While Hinckley was en route from New York City to Denver, Jack Hinckley met
with his other son, Scott, who stated that he and his sister, Diane, had discussed John’s
erratic behavior during the holidays, and had concluded that John needed to be
hospitalized. Scott later testified, "I just thought the situation was out of control” (United
States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982). Scott and Diane Hinckley firmly
believed that their younger brother’s problems went far beyond mourning Lennon’s
death. While their father listened and agreed, after meeting with John’s psychologist, Dr.
!99
Hopper, he remained convinced that the doctor was a professional who knew best, and
decided to stick with the plan to set the young man off on his own. Dr. Hopper had
discussed that John might experience too much later stigma as a result of a hospitalization
and thought the initial plan was the only possible way to insure his future success (J.
Hinckley et al., 1985, pp. 134-135).
When Hinckley’s plane landed on March 7, his father went alone to meet him at
the airport. He gave John $200 in cash, put transmission fluid in his car in the airport
parking lot, and informed him that he was on his own. Jack would later tearfully express
at his son’s trial that
in looking back on that, I’m sure that was the greatest mistake in my life. I am the
cause of John’s tragedy. We forced him out at a time in his life when he just
couldn’t cope. I wish to God I could trade places with him right now. (J. Hinckley
et al., 1985, p. 160; United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982)
During the trial, it became know that the following day (March 8), Hinckley
checked into Room 29 at the Golden Hours Motel in Lakewood, Colorado, just outside
Denver. No visitors were witnessed entering or leaving his room, and his movements
were confined to multiple daily walks to fast food restaurants. His interactions with
others were nearly non-existent, lest the hotel housekeeper, who would later recount,
"I talked to him every day," said Ginger Aucourt, the motel maid. "We talked
about music. We talked about the weather. We talked about Texas." But she said
the young man "never talked about hisself [sic], his family, politics or religion."
He spent 16 days at the Golden Hours, alone. (Clines, 1981)
John W. Hinckley, Jr., however, did reappear at the Hinckley household one last
time on March 24. Knowing his father would be at work and that he could appeal to his
mother’s sense of fear for his safety, he was able to obtain an additional $100 from her
!100
and a ride to the airport. According to the testimony of Dr. William Carpenter, lead
psychiatrist for the defense at his trial, it was on this occasion (as opposed to the day his
father sent him off on his own) during which his mother, who had always been his most
sympathetic ally and enabler, sent him off on his own that he totally split from his only
attachment to reality, and sunk into the throngs of his delusional fantasy life (United
States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982).
From an early age, John had used the sympathy of his mother for his own gains,
both material and emotional. He was aware that his father had developed an increasingly
negative view of him, and felt a great deal of resentment toward him for manipulating his
mother, and toward Jo Ann for what her perceived to be her continued coddling of her
son. According to Clarke (1990),
because of Jack’s growing resentment to the son who was so unlike himself,
John’s cherished conversations with his mother had to be guarded, had to occur
only when Jack wasn’t around. It was sad, but the knowledge of the now furtive
nature of their relationship made both John and his mother feel uncomfortable. It
was as if they were doing something wrong, and John’s resentment of his father
deepened because of it. (pp. 23-24)
Following his last encounter with his mother, Hinckley flew to New Haven with a
vague notion of killing himself in front of Jodie Foster, killing her then turning the gun on
himself, or committing another unspecified act (evidence was revealed in court records
that he considered hijacking a plane, making bomb threats to airlines or the White House,
or assassinating other noted public figures including Edward Kennedy) in order to
achieve his goal of forcing a recognition of him by Ms. Foster and of forging a
relationship with her in this world or the next. After several days of leaving her notes and
!101
calling her twice only to be kindly, but firmly asked to cease his efforts by Ms. Foster
herself, Hinckley realized he would have to resort to an alternate plan, and traveled to
Washington, D.C., on March 28, unsure of the specifics (Caplan, 1984; J. Hinckley et al.,
1985; United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982). The Federal Bureau of
Investigation would later report that in addition to having considered Senator Edward
Kennedy as a possible target, Hinckley had read extensively on the assassinations of John
F. and Robert Kennedy, and had collected books and clippings on both that were
recovered in a later seizure and analysis of his belongings (FBI File No. 175-601 as cited
in Clarke, 2006).
On the day of the shooting, Hinckley awoke early and could not go back to sleep.
He would later testify, “I remember waking up early in the morning, seven or eight, and
thinking why I couldn’t get to sleep” (Clarke, 1990, p. 3). After reading the president’s
schedule in the Washington Post the morning of March 30, 1981, and discovering that
Reagan would be speaking at a meeting of the AFL-CIO union meeting that afternoon,
Hinckley returned to the Park Central Hotel from the McDonald’s restaurant where he
had enjoyed an Egg McMuffin and the newspaper, took 20-35 minutes to write the letter
he would leave behind for Ms. Foster, filled his gun, a Rohm .22 caliber RG-14 pistol,
with devastator exploding bullets, and went to the Washington Hilton Hotel at 1919
Connecticut Avenue, to see how close he could get. Dr. Park Dietz would later testify
during trial that
A man driven by passion, by uncontrollable forces, is not often
inclined to take the time to write a letter to explain what this is about.
He did. And he claims he spent 20 to 35 minutes writing that letter.
!102
(United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982)
Of note during his preparation procedure is the fact that, “There were only six
devastators of the forty-three bullets he had, and he selected those six when he loaded the
pistol” (Clarke, 1990, p. 5). Although the devastator bullets did not explode as
anticipated in his victims, Hinckley had no way of knowing that they would not, at least
in some. He specifically selected the bullets that, from his perception, would cause the
most harm to those struck. Despite his early waking, he proceeded through the day, free
of anxiety and blunted in affect. During the trial it was learned that Hinckley consumed
medication early in the day that he had been prescribed back in Colorado, and that,
according to Abrams (1992), “Twenty milligrams of Valium played a special role in
preparing him for the event” (p. 11).
He saw President Ronald Reagan exit the Hilton Hotel, and realized he could
indeed get close enough to take aim, which is exactly what he did as the president left the
building, injuring him and three others.
The Act and the Aftermath
Don't cry for me Arizona
the truth is
I brought it on myself
in a calculated way
and by means which
I would postively hurt
everyone around me. (J. W. Hinckley, 1981a)
Immediately following the discharge of six bullets in 1.7 seconds, three people -
District of Columbia Police Officer Tom Delahanty, Secret Service agent Timothy
McCarty, and Reagan press secretary James Brady - lay injured in front of the
!103
Washington Hilton Hotel. President Ronald Reagan had been rushed into his waiting
limousine by Secret Service Special Agent-in-charge, Jerry Parr. Although Reagan did
not appear to have been struck, once in the limousine he complained that Agent Parr had
perhaps broken his rib when he tackled him into the car. Though the presidential
limousine was initially headed for the White House, the president began spitting up
foamy bright red blood, and Parr ordered the car to proceed to George Washington
University Hospital, despite the fact that no bullet wound was observable. Immediately
upon entering the hospital, the president collapsed to his knees. As he was examined by
doctors, it was determined that
The bullet that ricocheted off the limousine struck Reagan just under his left
armpit. It then hit the top of his seventh rib, and was deflected three inches into
the lower left lung, about one inch from the heart and aorta. (Abrams, 1992, p. 54)
His left lung had collapsed, and the “pleural cavity filled with blood” (Abrams, 1992, p.
55).
It was approximately 2:30pm, and the president was losing blood at an alarming
rate. According to Dr. Joseph Giordano, head of the trauma team treating Mr. Reagan,
the president received three blood transfusions while in the emergency room in an
attempt to stabilize him, as the insertion of a chest tube to reveal the bleeding and
pressure in his chest expelled between 2200 and 2400 ccs of blood instantaneously, a
large percentage of his overall blood volume. Intravenous fluids were aggressively
administered simultaneously, with the hope of increasing his blood pressure from a
frighteningly low 70/0 (Abrams, 1992, p. 61).
By the time he reached the operating room, Reagan “had lost about 2100 cc of
!104
blood, but his bleeding had slowed and he had received 4.5 replacement units” (Abrams,
1992, p. 62). Reagan was placed on a ventilator via a tracheal incision. By the end of the
nearly three-hour surgery, the president and undergone peritoneal lavage, removal of the
bullet, and local suturing of the lung. According to Abrams (1992), “He had lost 3400 cc
of blood, over 50 percent of his total blood volume” (p. 64).
The reason for such a massive loss of blood became clear during surgery.
According to Abrams (1992),
While the entry site of the bullet appeared diminutive, the tear in the
pleura and the lungs was far larger, ...it must have had a rotary
movement until it reached its final deposition point…..As air entered
the pleural cavity through the wound, the lung collapsed and produced
profound respiratory distress that he had experienced first in the
limousine a few minutes after the incident. (p. 138)
The president had truly been at high risk of death as a result of his injury.
As he emerged from anesthesia several hours following surgery and while still
attached to a respirator, Reagan was frightened and agitated. He was unable to speak but
wished to communicate.
The President was handed the back of a hospital progress sheet
attached to a clipboard to write on. And write he did. Early notes
continued to express his worry over his breathing, but their tone
lightened at times. “Am I alive?” he asked in one note after waking
from a nap. (Pekkanen, 2014)
In the days that followed, his fever spiked and became difficult to control. From
days 2 to 11 of his hospitalization, the president struggled with the onset of pneumonia, a
fact that was deeply troubling to physicians, yet a reality that was concealed from the
American public. He was constantly monitored and treated with an aggressive course of
!105
antibiotics. For several days, doctors struggled with lowering his temperature.
While the severity of his condition and the life-threatening nature of the injury the
president had sustained was downplayed to the media, Mr. Reagan had actually been far
more severely injured and ill than the American public was led to believe in the days,
weeks, and immediate years of his administration that followed the incident. However,
James Brady was worse off than the president during this time (Brady, 2011).
When Brady sustained his wound and fell, “He fell so close to Hinckley that he
nearly toppled him” (Wilber, 2011, p. 82). Immediately following the shooting, Press
Secretary Brady lay face down on the pavement outside of the Washington Hilton Hotel
with a bullet wound to the left frontal lobe. As he lay there, assisted by co-workers
attempting to stop the profuse bleeding with handkerchiefs, brain matter was actually
emerging from the site of his wound along with copious amounts of blood at an alarming
rate. Brady courageously tried to get himself to his feet, although this would prove
impossible. His injury was critical, and his body, for the remaining 34 years of his life
would continue to be affected by the gunshot wound. Hinckley had been standing a mere
few feet from Mr. Brady when he shot him at point blank range, as Brady slightly turned
his head in Hinckley’s direction. Brady was struck with the first of six bullets fired.
Despite the fact that Hinckley bore witness to the devastation of his bullet to Mr. Brady’s
head, Hinckley was undeterred from firing a further five bullets, emptying his gun.
Like the president, Mr. Brady was also transported to George Washington
University Hospital and surgery took place immediately, despite the fact that
neurosurgeon, Arthur Kobrine, consulted with his supervisor, Dan Ruge, expressing,
!106
“‘Dan,’ he said, ‘I don’t think he’s going to make it, but I think we ought to operate.’
Ruge told him to do whatever he thought he had to do” (Pekkanen, 2014). Brady was in a
desperate fight for his life. Pekkanen (2014) further explained that
there was little hope for James Brady. His injury was hideous. The
hole through his skull, just above his left eye, leaked cerebral tissue
freely. His eyes were so swollen that they could no longer be examined
to see if his pupils were fixed and dilated, and the only hopeful sign
was that on arrival they still reacted to light. His left eye had swollen
to the size of an egg. He was unconscious, but his body sometimes
thrashed.
The bullet had traversed the two hemispheres of his brain, and nearly
90 percent of such wounds are fatal. Because of the injury, his brain
had begun to swell. When swelling is uncontrolled, the brain
“herniates” down—the only direction it can go in the confines of the
skull—and there it compresses the brain stem, which regulates
heartbeat and other vital functions of the body. When this happens, the
patient dies.
Following her arrival at the hospital upon learning of her husband being shot,
Sarah Brady anxiously awaited news about the progress of his treatment. She was
eventually approached by neurosurgeon, Arthur Kobrine, after several hours of surgery
had passed. According to Sarah Brady’s account,
He said, "your husband has been hit above the left eye. The bullet entered above
his left eye, and has transversed to the right side. If the operation is successful, he
may well walk out of here. However, we do know that he will lose total use of his
left arm and partial use of his left leg.” (Brady, 2002, p. 7)
James Brady did indeed lose use of his left limbs and was further plagued by cognitive
and physical deficits throughout the remainder of his life. He was primarily confined to a
wheelchair, but made a heroic recovery, exceeding doctors' expectations. Shocking,
when it is taken into account that based on unofficial hospital leaks during his surgery,
!107
that, “Later in the afternoon, all three television networks reported Brady's death - only to
have that report contradicted by Brady's deputy, Larry Speakes” (Pekkanen, 2014).
On August 4, 2014, over 33 years after the shooting that changed the entire course
of his existence, James Brady died at the age of 73 years, surrounded by his wife and
children at an Alexandria, Virginia, assisted living facility. The medical examiner of
Virginia conducted an autopsy and ruled his death a homicide directly resulting from his
injuries sustained during the 1981 shooting. Sarah Brady, his ever-faithful and devoted
wife was to die in that same assisted living facility a mere 10 months later on April 3,
2015.
Secret Service agent, Timothy McCarthy, had also been brought to the George
Washington University Hospital and was operated on, having sustained a wound to the
abdomen in defense of President Reagan. He leaped in front of an on-coming bullet,
using his body as a shield and, likely, saved the president’s life. Like the president and
James Brady, McCarthy was also transported to George Washington University Hospital
where he was operated on.
In ER 3, Secret Serviceman Tim McCarthy was in stable condition.
The only outward sign of injury was a small, bloodless hole in his right
chest. A peritoneal lavage was performed- a procedure in which sterile
fluid is put into the abdominal cavity and washed out to determine if
any blood is present. There was. Exploratory surgery would be
necessary.
McCarthy was apprehensive but remained calm. He asked about the
President. Dr. Stephen Pett, a thoracic surgeon, and Doctors Jack
Fisher and Norman Odyniec were among those attending him.
(Pekkanen, 2014)
Officer Thomas Delahanty suffered a gunshot wound as well. Although
!108
Delahanty is the least known of the shooting victims (having not talked much to the
press), his suffering at the time was tremendous. According to Del Quentin Wilber
(2011), Washington Post writer and author of Rawhide Down: The Attempted
Assassination of Ronald Reagan, immediately following his shooting,
in agony from the bullet wound in his back, he had left deep bite marks in the
leather slapjack shoved into his mouth to help him fight the pain. While lying on
the sidewalk, he had asked for a priest. (p. 124)
Ironically, Delahanty was not even supposed to be on patrol at the Hilton that day.
Wilber (2011) discovered that “Delahanty…was currently assigned to the department’s
K-9 unit, but his dog, Kirk, was ill that day, so he was available to work security” (p.
177).
Unlike Reagan, Brady, and McCarthy, however, Officer Delahanty was taken to
Washington Hospital Center because paramedics feared overcrowding at George
Washington University Hospital. He was hospitalized for 11 days. Although, initially,
doctors did not perform surgery, on the third day of his hospitalization he successfully
underwent surgery for a bullet wound to his spine near his neck. According to Wilber
(2011),
Though doctors had at first decided not to operate because the round
lay so close to his spine, they changed their minds after learning that
the bullet was a Devastator: it retained the potential to explode or leach
toxins within the officer’s body even after the shooting. FBI agents
only later determined that only one of the rounds actually exploded.
That one struck Jim Brady. (p. 223)
Following the recovery from his injury, Delahanty was “sent into immediate
retirement at age 45, with enduring pain” (Riechmann, 2001). Because of the nature of
!109
his injury, as an 18-year veteran of the police force, he “retired on full disability in
November 1981; the bullet that struck him in the back caused nerve damage too severe to
allow him to return to duty” (Wilber, 2011, p. 223). Delahanty received a commendation
for heroism in protecting the president and would later sue both John Hinckley and the
gun manufacturer. He was unsuccessful in both lawsuit attempts.
Hinckley was not to face any further charges relative to his shooting Mr. Brady
and ultimately causing his death, however. In a statement issues by the United States
Attorney’s office,
In summary, any further prosecution of Hinckley premised on his
March 1981 shooting of Mr. Brady would be precluded by the doctrine
of collateral estoppel, which would prevent the U.S. Attorney’s Office
from arguing, or a court or jury from finding, that Hinckley was sane
at the time Mr. Brady was shot. Thus, Hinckley would be entitled to a
directed verdict that he was not guilty of the murder of Mr. Brady by
reason of insanity. Furthermore, a homicide prosecution would be
precluded by the common law "year-and-a-day rule," in effect at the
time. (United States Attorney’s Office, 2015)
Meanwhile in Washington D.C., John Hinckley had been quickly apprehended by
law enforcement agents. In the confusion that ensued as he was firing and people were
falling or ducking, Secret Service reports reveal that
A bystander, Alfred Antenucci, jumped Hinckley from behind as he
squeezed off the sixth and last shot, and Special Agent Denis
McCarthy (no relation to Tim McCarthy) dove on the shooter an
instant later, as Hinckley continued to pull the trigger of an empty
gun. Two D.C. policemen quickly wrestled the pistol away from
Hinckley. (Melanson & Stevens, 2002, p. 116)
Further, according to a report issued by the United States Secret Service (1981), “Mr.
Antenucci, a civilian, first hit Mr. Hinckley” (p. 9). Evidently, Mr. Antenucci punched
!110
Hinckley in the head upon realizing that Hinckley was firing a gun in the direction of the
president. Later, when interviewed by the Secret Service, Antenucci expressed that
although he had noticed Hinckley in the crowd prior to the shooting, he “advised that
Hinckley never appeared to be fidgety or agitated” (United States Secret Service, 1981, p.
2). As chaos ensued, Special Agent D.V. McCarthy became involved. At first, he did not
see anything. Then he saw the gun coming out of the crowd and he leaped on the subject.
McCarthy got a headlock on Hinckley and with his left hand he grasped his left wrist.
Other people then piled on top and McCarthy could not tell what happened to the gun
(United States Secret Service, 1981, p. 2).
The gun was later accounted for at the scene. Of additional note is the fact that
Hinckley, despite his November arrest for gun possession in Nashville, was not on any
Secret Service watch list at the time of the shooting (United States Secret Service, 1981,
p. 1).
Mayhem continued to ensue as Hinckley was subdued and the scene was assessed
for other potential shooters. Once Hinckley was placed in handcuffs, he was immediately
shoved into the second police car to the scene (the door was jammed and could not be
opened on the first car) and taken to the Central Cell Block of the Metropolitan Police
Department. Formal questioning began, conducted by Eddie Meyers, a 14-year veteran
of the Washington, D.C., homicide division. Meyers was friendly to Hinckley, anxious to
calm him in order to get information. “I want to hear your side of the story” (Clarke,
1990, p. 10), he told Hinckley. Hinckley again expressed dismay at being manhandled
during his apprehension (he had complained in the police cruiser) and complained to
!111
Meyers of having scrapes on his arms from being aggressively handcuffed. Meyers then
told Hinckley, “It’s okay…you’re perfectly safe here” (Clarke, 1990, p. 10).
Meyers very quickly succeeded in gaining Hinckley’s trust. His casual style put
Hinckley at ease. According to Clarke (1990),
“I don’t know anything about the shooting,” John Hinckley replied.
“Come on now, John. You must be a Democrat.”
Hinckley chuckled. These bouts of levity punctuated their discussion.
Hinckley helped Meyers spell “assassinate.”
When Dr. William Brownley came in and examined Hinckley, he
informed Meyers he would need to collect a specimen of his pubic
hair.
“Pubic hair? George, for chrissakes [sic], he didn’t fuck Reagan, he
shot him.” Meyers replied. Hinckley doubled over in hysterical
laughter. (pp. 10-11)
Hinckley was then examined by Dr. Brownley. Hinckley drew the doctor’s
attention to the pain he was experiencing in his wrists, believing they were broken, and to
the injury he had sustained as a result of Mr. Antenucci’s punches to the back of his head.
Brownley reported that his injuries were not serious and required no further evaluation or
treatment. With regard to his observation of Hinckley’s behavior during the examination,
Brownley, like Meyers, felt that, “Hinckley experienced and expressed a normal range of
emotions in an appropriate manner throughout the period immediately following his
arrest. He was serious when the conversation was serious; and he laughed and traded
quips when it was not” (Clarke, 1990, p. 12). Brownley would later testify that during
the examination, Hinckley had been, “a little anxious,” “slightly withdrawn, but not
depressed at all,” and further expressed that, “he was not at all out of touch with
!112
reality” (Low, Jeffries, & Bonnie, 1986, p. 29). Secret Service records about Hinckley
during this same time period described Hinckley as, “calm and unemotional” (Low et. al.,
1986, p. 29).
Following his questioning and examination at the Washington, D.C., police
station, Hinckley was moved to the Federal Bureau of Investigations at the Washington,
D.C., field office. Once there, Hinckley was finally permitted to call his parents. Both,
by that time, already knew of his apprehension and were still jarred by the events of the
day. As the phone rang at the home of their next-door neighbors, the Sells, Jack and Jo
Ann Hinckley went to separate receivers to speak with him concurrently. That
conversation was recounted in their book, Breaking Points (J. Hinckley et al., 1985).
(Jo Ann) “John…John, is it you?”
“It’s me…Is that you, mom?”
“John!” His own dear familiar voice. “Are you all right, John?”
“I’m okay. My wrists hurt a little.”
“Daddy’s going to an extension upstairs.”
John did sound alright. Calm, unexcited. What was it about his voice
that was so very wrong…
(Jack) I grabbed the receiver in the Sells’ bedroom in time to hear John
say, “No, Mom, I’m fine. Really.” “I’m on too, John.” I said.
“Daddy and I want you to know we love you,” Jo Ann told him.
“That’s right, son. We’re all in this together.” I couldn’t bring myself
to ask him what had happened, or why. Maybe I knew I wouldn’t get
the answer anyway. I told him I was already in touch with a lawyer.
“We’ll get to Washington as fast as we can,” Jo Ann said.
!113
“The main thing, John,” I told him, “is that your mom and I are with
you. No matter what’s happened, we’re still your family. Scott says the
same. Diane and Steve, too. And Grandma and Grandpa. You’re not
alone.”
Another voice came on the phone; the man introduced himself as
John’s temporary court-appointed lawyer. “How is he? Is he really
alright?” Jo Ann asked anxiously. “Was he injured when - during the -
she could hardly bring out the word. “The arrest?”
No serious injuries, the lawyer replied. His check was swollen where a
man in the crowd had struck him, and there was sone chafing at the
wrists where he’d been handcuffed. “Did you know,” the lawyer went
on, “that your son was arrested in Nashville, Tennessee, last fall?”
“John?”
“At the airport.”
“But - John was in school in New Haven, Connecticut, last fall!” I
said.
“Well, he was in Nashville on October 9th. Tried to board an airplane
with a small arsenal. The police didn’t notify you?”
The man talked on: court procedures, legal requirements. I scarcely
heard. My mind was racing backward to the previous fall when John
had left to attend a writing seminar. If this man’s information was
correct, he’s somehow gotten a number of guns and ended up in
Tennessee, a thousand miles from Yale. How many more bombshells
were in store?
“…bring this case to court before May 29th,” the attorney was saying.
“I didn’t catch that,” I apologized. John wouldn’t be 26 until the end of
May, the man repeated. In District of Columbia courts, a 25 year-old
could be tried as a youthful offender - but that would mean going to
court within the next two months.
I thanked the lawyer for stepping in, assured him we’d come up with
permanent counsel as fast as possible. (pp. 29-31)
!114
In the early morning hours of March 31, 1981, as federal agents inspected the
Washington, D.C., room in which John W. Hinckley, Jr., had spent the night before
attempting to assassinate the president, they found three cassette tapes, deliberately left
for their discovery. The first featured the recording Hinckley had made on New Year’s
Eve of 1981, as he sat alone in his parents’ basement, speaking of a connection he could
not explain or understand between the death of John Lennon and his infatuation with
Jodie Foster. The second cassette contained a recording federal agents described to news
affiliates in these terms: “Mr. Hinckley strummed on a guitar the tune, Oh Yoko, Mr.
Lennon's love song for his wife, but substituted the name 'Jodie' for 'Yoko' while singing
the song aloud” (Associated Press, 1981). The third cassette was a recording Hinckley
had made of his telephone conversation with Jodie Foster. Additional belongings found
by federal agents in room #312 of the Park Central Hotel in Washington, D.C., following
the attempted assassination, included a copy of The Catcher in the Rye, by J. D. Salinger,
and a 1981 John Lennon calendar (Linder, 2009).
While the Park Central Hotel room was being examined in Washington, D.C.,
John Hinckley’s basement room in his parents home was converged upon by federal
agents as well. During this search, Jack Hinckley took notice of the titles of books on the
shelves of John’s room as agents placed books from his son’s shelves into large plastic
trash bags in an effort to collect possible evidence. The elder Hinckley recalled that
books that had seemed previously innocuous to him appeared more sinister as agents
placed them in bags to be carried off for later examination. Among them were
biographies about Ronald Reagan and Lee Harvey Oswald, a map of Washington, D.C.,
!115
guitar instruction manuals and several books about The Beatles (J. Hinckley et al., 1985,
p. 24). Specific books collected by FBI agents included The Myth of the Six Million, a
pro-Nazi book denying the occurrence of the Holocaust; and Welcome to Xanadu, the
story of a kidnapper who eventually kills himself. Several Beatles books were also
discovered. Perhaps most interestingly, a copy of The Fox is Crazy Too, the real life story
of Garrett Trapnell, a hijacker and bank robber who was found not guilty by reason of
insanity in a major hijacking case, who had also, “admitted that he had previously been
arrested at least twenty times for major crimes but had spent little time in jail was
discovered.” On each occasion of his arrest, Trapnell “had invoked the ‘split
personality’ (which he had long since perfected), had been acquitted on an insanity
defense, and sent to a mental hospital from which he escaped. He admitted that his split
personality was all a magnificent hoax” (Torrey, 1974, pp. 95-96).
On the evening following the assassination attempt, the FBI gathered as much
evidence as they could from a thorough search of the Hinckley family home. A few days
later, however, Jo Ann Hinckley, while remaking her son’s disheveled bed, discovered a
crumpled piece of paper between the bed and the wall, containing this poem in John's
distinctive handwriting (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, pp. 32-33):
I read the news today, oh no!
John Lennon is dead and people continue to laugh and dream and live...
Oh listen to the comedian tell his jokes...
The audience is laughing, so he must be amusing,
but I’m not close to a smile. John Lennon is dead!
Seventy-five thousand people with brains are
!116
watching the all-important football game...
Isn’t it fun and exciting? No, no, a thousand
times. Because a man died on December 8, 1980, and nothing
will ever be the same...
For an entire week after the assassination
of John Lennon, I cried like a sick baby...
What I cannot comprehend is the fact that
people are trying to carry on with life now.
What’s the use?
In America. heros [sic] are meant to be killed. Idols
are meant to be shot in the back. Guns are neat
little things, aren’t they? They can kill
extraordinary people with very little effort.
But don’t say a word about it to the NRA.
John Lennon died a couple weeks ago and I
did too. Bang, bang, we’re all dead. The stupid
earth keeps revolving and the stupid people keep
the faith but they are actually walking corpses.
Everyone is dead.
Ronald Reagan never missed a beat. Of course he’s
not in favor of gun control. How can you make a
world move without guns, guns, guns?
I think the Charter Arms people are so clever
to produce guns that are so small, and yet have
the capacity to kill famous people.
Every red blooded American
should send a valentine card to the good folks at
Charter Arms, and the good folks at the NRA.
Speaking of red blood, I heard from an eyewitness
that the stuff was coming out of Lennon’s mouth
and body at an alarming rate after he was shot.
And all it took to produce such a spectacle was
a little toy gun and an American pulling the
trigger.
I am an American and boy am I proud! Let’s see
!117
how many more idols we can wipe off the face of
the earth....
The dream is over.
I died. You died. Everyone died.
America died. The world died. The universe died.
Did God die?
The God I was told to believe in would never have
permitted the murder of John Lennon. God didn’t
die. He never was alive in the first place.
The Trial
The Painful Evolution
In the beginning
it was a time for pretending.
The martyr in me played games
and I was the young alienated loner.
Toward the middle,
I lied about pain and troubles.
It was a mere three years ago
that I played the part so well.
Nearing the bend,
I should have turned back.
I could have taken the road
that leads to meaningful existence.
In the end,
I cursed myself and suffered.
I have become what I wanted
to be all along, a psychotic poet. (J. W. Hinckley, 1981b)
While cooperating with defense attorneys led by Vince Fuller of the prestigious
Williams and Connelly firm in preparation for the trial, Jack and Jo Ann Hinckley
became aware of John’s interest in Jodie Foster. He had done nothing previously to
indicate that such an interest existed, and his parents were completely shocked to
!118
discover that this was the case. In January 1982, Hinckley wrote a letter to his parents
informing them that he refused to cooperate with his attorneys if Ms. Foster was not
called as a witness at his trial, stating the she was “in this thing,” and that she “knows her
lines” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 256). Despite the fact that Jack Hinckley found this
sentiment a clear indication of questionable mental stability, his fear that John would not
participate in his own defense was so great that he went to financial and logistical
extremes to make sure the legal team he had hired to defend John was able to ensure her
cooperation, however misguided and unnecessary it was. While awaiting trial, Hinckley
wrote to news outlets, making sure he influenced the way he was portrayed in the media.
On September 7, 1981, Hinckley wrote to a Washington Post reporter requesting not to be
referred to as a drifter in future news stories. In October,
Newsweek publishes a written interview with John W. Hinckley Jr. "In
closing," he writes, "I would like to say hello to Ms. Foster and ask her
one small question: Will you marry me, Jodie?" Meanwhile, Time
publishes a letter in which the would-be assassin finally explains his
fondness for the actress. "From head to toe, every square inch of Jodie
is what attracts me," he writes. "Jodie's got the look I crave. What else
can I say?” (Clarke, 2006)
Because of his own strong work ethic, Jack Hinckley had initially elected to
believe that John had simply been lazy and irresponsible. Mental illness was not
considered a real possibility. While he felt that his children, Scott and Diane, and his
wife, Jo Ann, were reasonable in their belief that John should be treated in an inpatient
facility once mental issues became apparent, he believed, despite the nagging feelings he
had that something was just not right, that Dr. Hopper knew best because he was a mental
health professional. After following Hopper’s plan to force his son out on his own, when
!119
John made an attempt on the life of Reagan, Jack Hinckley was horrified, and spoke until
the end of his life about the deep sense of regret he felt for ignoring the wishes of the rest
of his family as well as his own feelings of reluctance about the plan.
Following two unsuccessful plea bargain attempts, Hinckley’s trial began on May
4, 1982, and lasted seven weeks. In total, Hinckley faced 13 federal felony charges. The
prosecution experts were led by Dr. Park Elliot Dietz, a Harvard psychiatrist, who
expressed that in his clinical opinion, Mr. Hinckley, “was not psychotic at any
time” (Linder, 2009; United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982), and that
Hinckley was essentially a spoiled, manipulative young man, fully capable of organizing
and executing a plan, who was consciously and intellectually capable of understanding
the wrongfulness of his actions. He believed Mr. Hinckley was merely infatuated with
Jodie Foster, not obsessed, and that he intentionally committed his crimes with the goal
of achieving worldwide fame much like the Beatles, that he had so desperately sought to
gain since his youth. Dr. Dietz believed that Hinckley presented with schizoid
personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and dysthymic disorder, all without
the presence of psychotic features. His narcissistic personality disorder, Dietz expressed,
was the essential cause for his commission of criminal acts. According to Caplan (1984),
Dr. Dietz believed that, “Hinckley became a lazy, fame-seeking, manipulative, self-
concerned, and privileged loner, who harassed his parents about his inheritance, lied to
them, and tricked them out of money” (p. 74).
This opinion was supported by Dr. Sally Johnson, a psychiatrist at Butner Medical
Facility in North Carolina where Hinckley had been sent awaiting trial. Dr. Johnson had
!120
interacted with Hinckley through 57 hours of interviews - more than anyone else
representing either the defense or the prosecution. She testified that although Mr.
Hinckley presented with narcissistic personality disorder and major depressive disorder
with accompanying suicidal ideation, he was not, nor had he been at any time, psychotic.
In her clinical opinion, Hinckley’s narcissistic personality disorder was the root cause of
his desire to gain fame by committing a spectacular crime. Dr. Johnson, further
expressed that through her many clinical interactions with Mr. Hinckley, she observed
him to be, “schizoid, but mentally responsible,” and, that he wanted to “prove himself,”
and “get back at all the people who had let him down” (Associated Press, 1982; J.
Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 216). In her opinion, ‘the people’ who had let him down
included those in the music industry who were not apt to approach him and reward him
with unbridled fame, Jodie Foster for her lack of instant interest in him, and his family for
not attending to his every whim. In her clinical opinion, Hinckley’s personality disorder
was the root cause of his desire to gain fame by committing a spectacular crime,
believing that he was at no time unaware of who he was or the unlawful nature of what he
was doing (Linder, 2009; United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982).
While both Dietz and Johnson agreed that Hinckley admired the character of
Travis Bickle, both agreed that he did so in a way that was not unlike any typical person
who admired a cinematic idol. Both felt Hinckley merely adopted the traits of Bickle that
he enjoyed and found relatable. This stands to reason, as Hinckley also chose to adopt a
trait that Bickle would have found repugnant, based on what is known of the character: A
desire to have sexual relations with a child prostitute. Mr. Hinckley not only fixated on
!121
Jodie Foster in her early role, but went so far as to engage in sexual relations with not
one, but a known three (at least) real-life child prostitutes; an act that would have likely
put him on Travis Bickle’s “kill list,” were the character a real person.
Further, Dr. Dietz testified, "I think that Mr. Hinckley's interest in the Beatles is
the earliest sign that I've been able to discern that he became exceedingly interested in
fame, in the notion of success, in fame in a way that would not require a great deal of
effort" (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982). Fame, however, was
not a concept made understandable to the jurors by the prosecution that could be a
compelling enough factor to ensure a verdict of guilty. Dr. John Hopper from Colorado
also offered testimony about the 22 sessions he had over a 4-month period with Hinckley.
Hopper insisted he was completely unaware of Hinckley’s interest in Jodie Foster and
any suicidal or homicidal urges he may have had. Despite the frequency of Hinckley’s
sessions, “Hopper’s notes on the four months of treatment consisted of only fourteen
pages, a few of them with only two or three lines of comments” (Caplan, 1984, p. 65).
As Hopper was not called as an expert witness, his testimony was strictly confined to
recounting his sessions with John Hinckley and his family. These sessions had consisted
almost entirely of future-planning activities and relaxation sessions that employed
biofeedback technology.
Although they had learned of the Jodie Foster obsession from defense attorneys
during trial preparation, Jack and Jo Ann Hinckley were nonetheless shocked in January
of 1982, when the younger Hinckley wrote a letter informing them that he refused to
cooperate with his attorneys if Ms. Foster was not called as a witness at his trial (J.
!122
Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 256). As the official trial began and Ms. Foster was called as a
witness, Hinckley’s glee quickly soured. Although Ms. Foster was permitted to offer her
videotaped testimony in a closed courtroom, Mr. Hinckley was allowed to be present.
While heading to court on March 30, 1982, he excitedly informed his parents that he
would be in the same room with Ms. Foster when she testified. In a police cruiser on the
way to the courthouse, Hinckley is said to have vomited in the backseat. Once in the
courtroom, however, upon hearing her express that she had no relationship with Mr.
Hinckley, he hurled a Bic pen across the courtroom, barely missing the actor, screaming,
“I’ll get you, Foster” (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 267; United States of America v. John
W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982)! He had to be physically restrained by four marshals in the
courtroom. Of concern is the fact that “the jury did not see the whole tape of Jodie Foster
- did not see Hinckley throw a pen at her (it hit her lawyer), or after she ignored him at
the taping, hear him threaten to kill her” (Caplan, 1984, p. 16).
As the trial continued, experts for both the defense and the prosecution presented
predictably divergent clinical opinions of Mr. Hinckley’s diagnosis. Defense experts, led
by Dr. William Carpenter, then-director of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center and
a professor at the University of Maryland specializing in the study of schizophrenia and
schizophrenia research, expressed the opinion that John Hinckley, Jr., suffered from a
form of schizophrenia he referred to as, “process schizophrenia” (Linder, 2009; Low et
al., 1986; United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982). Essentially, Dr.
Carpenter believed that gradually and over a period of time, Hinckley developed
delusional thinking that could be provoked by a specific situational context. Specifically,
!123
Carpenter held that the film, Taxi Driver, had filled John‘s troubled and vulnerable mind
with fantastic thoughts that he could embrace and cling to in a way that would allow him
an escapist -view of life, and an avenue through which he could attach to and adopt ways
of being that reflected the character, Travis Bickle, versus Hinckley himself.
In Carpenter’s opinion, this process, which was mainly an unconscious
one, occurred because Hinckley’s emotional isolation and poorly
developed sense of identity made him especially ‘vulnerable’ and
‘open to influences’ during this time. The prosecution experts agreed
that Hinckley imitated Travis Bickle in some respects, but resisted the
conclusion that he lost his own identity and absorbed Bickle’s. (Low et
al., 1986, p. 24)
Carpenter believed that while Mr. Hinckley could indeed plan, organize, and
execute behaviors, that the essence of this thought process was flawed though his
adoption of non-sensical beliefs, despite evidence to the contrary. Carpenter further
expressed that foremost in Mr. Hinckley’s mind was suicidal ideation in the form of
seeking a way to end his own experience, preferably by going out with a quintessential,
“bang,” Carpenter further testified that while John Hinckley knew intellectually that
killing the president was illegal and wrong, that he could not emotionally appreciate the
ramifications of his actions. In light of this position and his delusional thought processes,
Hinckley (Carpenter believed) could not be held legally responsible for his actions
(Linder, 2009; Low et al., 1986; United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982).
The study of any assassin, or attempted assassin, merits an examination of the
factors that purportedly influenced his or her actions. This is particularly true in the case
of John W. Hinckley, Jr., considering that the influence of a film was considered so
relevant in his case, that his team of attorneys and experts staked his entire insanity
!124
defense on it and won. Rarely in American judicial history has the influence of a specific
film been used successfully to argue and win a case for a defendant who appeared
outwardly sane to the layperson.
To further confuse the jury, comprised of 12 well-intended individuals who
mostly lacked any post-high school education, defense attorney Vince Fuller relied on the
creation of a ‘shadow of a doubt’ that could result in his client being found something
other than patently guilty. In order to achieve this outcome, he presented medically-
confusing testimony initially rebuked by the judge but ultimately allowed from Dr. David
Bear, a psychiatrist who presented computerized axial tomography (CAT) scans that were
taken of Mr. Hinckley’s brain. In these scans, sulci were observed to be slightly wider
than typical. Dr. Bear expressed to the jury that widened sulci were present in only 1 of
50 individuals who were considered normal or typical, versus being found in 1 of 3
individuals who were diagnosed with schizophrenia. Following the testimony of Dr.
Carpenter and other experts who felt that Hinckley was unable to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his actions because he believed he was Travis Bickle, and the confusion
created by Dr. Bear, Mr. Fuller, in a dramatic move, chose to show the film Taxi Driver to
the jury as a final submission of evidence.
As the trial wound down, jurors were placed in the unfortunate position of
determining whether or not John W. Hinckley, Jr., was guilty of the 13 federal felony
counts he faced, or whether he had truly suffered from a mental disorder that had caused
him to lack a fundamental understanding of the ramifications of his crimes. Of interest is
the fact that these were unusual assessments for a jury to be positioned to undertake.
!125
Although a verdict of guilty in the face of Hinckley being the known shooter who could,
at the very least, distinguish between the legal rightness or wrongfulness of his actions,
and who had, while stalking President Carter and Jodie Foster, resisted an irresistible
impulse to shoot, kidnap, or wound, would have seemed to be the most probable
outcome, the nature of the concept of guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, coupled with the
presentation of medically and psychiatrically complex arguments to an undereducated
jury, essentially forced the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. As Low et al.
(1986) observed, “the prevailing clinical understanding of mental health issues is not
easily translated into conclusions that can be of use in a legal setting” (p. 5).
And, thus, Mr. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity by a jury of
his peers, and sentenced to an undetermined period of confinement at St. Elizabeths
Mental Hospital in Washington, D.C., until the hospital and, ultimately, the court in
conjunction with the hospital, could determine that he was no longer a danger to himself
or others.
Early Days at St. Elizabeths
The line dividing life and art can be invisible. After seeing enough
hypnotizing movies and reading enough magical books, a fantasy life
develops which can either be harmless or quite dangerous. (John W.
Hinckley, Jr., as cited in Clarke, 2006)
Upon initial admission to St. Elizabeths, Hinckley was placed on suicide watch
and was assumed to have a continued diagnosis of major depressive disorder with
psychotic features and narcissistic personality disorder by staff psychiatrists and
psychologists. Within a period of a few months, however, the suicide watch order was
!126
removed and Mr. Hinckley was believed to be in complete remission of his major
depressive disorder and any subsequent psychotic features. His narcissistic personality
disorder became prominent, and he relished in inquiries about his opinions and ideas that
came his way, corresponding with magazines, radio stations, newspapers, and any other
media outlet that would permit him to express himself publicly.
Hinckley’s years at St. Elizabeths began disastrously. During the first year of his
admission in 1982, Hinckley responded to letters from a teenaged girl named Penny
Bailey who lived in Chicago. She was a sympathetic fan of his who indicated that she
wished to help him murder Jodie Foster. Hinckley wrote back, advising her to, “take a
bus to New Haven, Connecticut, where Jodie is in school and kill her yourself” (Clarke,
1990, p. 70). He asked her to send him a .38 caliber handgun so that he could break out
of St. Elizabeths. He also wrote James R. Snyder, a convicted murderer and repeat prison
escapee, asking for advice on plotting his own escape. His correspondence was not
limited to criminals or those with criminal intentions. In August of 1982, he composed a
poem, which was published in the tabloid magazine, The National Enquirer. It was
entitled Bloody Love. Jodie Foster’s legal team sued following its release, considering it
to be a threat due to its aggression and forward language. While Hinckley’s early
correspondences to Ms. Foster were juvenile and timid in nature, this poem was troubling
and clearly reactionary to her perceived ‘rejection’ of Hinckley during her courtroom
testimony. Through her suit was dismissed, editors of The National Enquirer agreed to
halt further publication of the poem and removed it from their archives. An excerpt of
the poem, published in the August 10 edition of The New York Times (1982) read,
!127
“She is scared to death about me. She knew I had bad intentions in my eyes. She couldn’t
come to me, so I raped her and killed her and shot myself.”
Hinckley was pleased with the attention he continued to receive, despite its
negative connotations, and could not resist allowing the punk band, DEVO, to use a
poem he had written as lyrics to a song. “I Desire” is the 10th track on Oh, No! It’s
DEVO, and was released by the band on October 21, 1982. In it, Hinckley wrote in very
grandiose terms about his actions and the significance of his feelings and needs:
I Desire by DEVO
I desire, I desire
I pledge allegiance to the thought
That your love is all that matters
And your gestures have the power
To bring the whole world to its knees
Don't let me torment you
Don't let me bring you down
Don't ever let me hurt you
Don't let me fail because
I desire your attention
I desire your perfect love
I desire nothing more than this
To give you happiness
Could become a lifetime goal
A smile I might bring you
Is more important than world peace
Don't let me torment you
Don't let me bring you down
Don't ever let me hurt you
Don't let me fail because
I desire your attention
I desire your perfect love
I desire nothing more than this
I pledge allegiance to the fact
That you're wise to walk away
For nothing is more dangerous
Than desire when it's wrong
!128
Don't let me torment you
Don't let me bring you down
Don't ever let me hurt you
Don't let me fail because
I desire your attention
I desire your perfect love
I desire nothing more
I desire your attention
I desire your perfect love
I desire nothing more or less
I desire, I desire
I desire, I desire. (J. W. Hinckley, Casale, & Mothersbaugh, 1982)
In November of 1982, while feeling pleased with his self-perceived success as a
songwriter because of the publication of his lyrics and the popular radio play of the
resulting song, John Hinckley received a letter from Mike Rhyner, producer of the
Morning Zoo radio program on popular Dallas, Texas, radio station, KZEW. Mr. Rhyner
had heard that Hinckley was corresponding with news outlets and individuals, and
decided to write to see if he would respond to him as well. Within a week, Hinckley did,
in fact, respond to Rhyner’s questions, which included, “Where did you hang out in
Dallas?” and “What kind of music do you listen to” (Peppard, 2014)?
In his response addressed to the “Morning Zoo People,” Hinckley indicated that
he liked NuWave, especially DEVO, with whom he “co-wrote a song” (Hinckley, 1982
November). In his letter to WZEW, Mr. Hinckley also expressed that in the year
preceding the assassination attempt, he had listened to the song Heroes, by David Bowie
from the 1977 album of the same title, on his various visits to New Haven while
contemplating his feelings for Jodie Foster and the actions he could potentially take to
gain her attention and interest. The lyrics of the song express the sensibilities of a
!129
grandiose character and his desire to overtake those in power of a system, with the
knowledge that these achievements might be of a fleeting nature.
Heroes by David Bowie
I, I will be king
And you, you will be queen
Though nothing will drive them away
We can beat them, just for one day
We can be Heroes, just for one day
And you, you can be mean
And I, I'll drink all the time
'Cause we're lovers, and that is a fact
Yes we're lovers, and that is that
Though nothing, will keep us together
We could steal time,
just for one day
We can be Heroes, for ever and ever
What d'you [sic] say?
I, I wish you could swim
Like the dolphins, like dolphins can swim
Though nothing,
nothing will keep us together
We can beat them, forever and ever
Oh we can be Heroes,
just for one day
I, I will be king
And you, you will be queen
Though nothing will drive them away
We can be Heroes, just for one day
We can be us, just for one day
I, I can remember (I remember)
Standing, by the wall (by the wall)
And the guns shot above our heads
(over our heads)
And we kissed,
as though nothing could fall
!130
(nothing could fall)
And the shame was on the other side
Oh we can beat them, for ever and ever
Then we could be Heroes,
just for one day
We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes
Just for one day
We can be Heroes
We're nothing, and nothing will help us
Maybe we're lying,
then you better not stay
But we could be safer,
just for one day. (Bowie & Eno, 1977)
As if the interviews, publications of poems and song, and published
correspondences were not enough, in 1982, John Hinckley made an unauthorized call to
The Washington Post news desk from the hospital. In the phone conversation, he
expressed to the desk reporter his newfound remorse about shooting James Brady,
specifically. He said, “When I saw Brady on the ground after I shot him, it was like it
was just a mannequin…I had no emotion about it…I really feel sorry for him
now” (Grove, 1985).
As sensational as his behavior seemed throughout 1982, following his initial
confinement, John Hinckley’s confinement became even more interesting at the St.
Elizabeths Halloween Dance for patients at the facility. On that particular day, he was to
meet the woman who would become his on-again, off-again girlfriend for over 16 years,
Leslie DeVeau.
Ms. DeVeau was a former social worker and Washington, D.C., socialite, having
!131
been included in the Washington, D.C., social register, The Green Book. On March 18,
1982, Leslie DeVeau crept into the bedroom of her sleeping 10-year-old daughter, Erin,
with her husband Anthony’s hunting rifle. She placed the gun in the middle of Erin’s
back and pulled the trigger. As blood and viscera splattered on the bed and wall, she
turned the gun on herself. She would later state that, “the gun was too long,” and in an
attempt to shoot herself in the chest perhaps (although this is not clear in the records - it
could have been the neck or the head), she nearly severed her left arm from her body.
When she was later discovered by neighbors, she asked, “Why didn’t God want me?” and
“Can I have a cigarette” (Mansfield, 1982)? Washington Post reporter Lloyd Grove
(1985) recounts that Leslie DeVeau was
the Friendship Heights housewife who shot and killed her 10-year-old
daughter and then turned a 12-gauge shotgun on herself in March
1982.
DeVeau, 41, whose left arm was amputated as a result of the self-
inflicted wound, was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.
Leslie DeVeau was admitted to St. Elizabeths following the insanity verdict.
Following the halloween dance, she and Hinckley met and became inseparable, or as
inseparable as two patients could be with one of them (Hinckley) residing on the
maximum security floor of the hospital.
The details of their relationship are well documented in the court records as well
as in Breaking Points, the book written by the parents of John Hinckley, and in a 1999
New Yorker article, "Strange Love," an interview with Ms. DeVeau in which she
purported to speak on behalf of Mr. Hinckley who was barred from publicly granting
!132
interviews. In these documents, their relationship is described as one in which Ms.
DeVeau and Mr. Hinckley were a couple in spite of his early continued fascination with
Jodie Foster and his later interest in Dr. Jeanette Wick, a pharmacist at St. Elizabeths.
Through this, he and Ms. DeVeau forged a relationship that included an engagement,
which was later used in the courts as part of Mr. Hinckley’s initially-suggested exit plan
from St. Elizabeths.
When Hinckley and DeVeau first met, they were drawn to each other as the only
conspicuously affluent, White patients at St. Elizabeths. Their first conversation at the
halloween dance provided both with their first (reported) encounter with another patient
that allowed them to open up and share their respective personal stories. Ms. DeVeau
reported that, “She needed someone to mother,” and that her “arms were empty” (Walsh,
1999, p. 55), following the murder of her daughter and her realization, as a result of her
depression and psychosis being controlled by medication and therapy, and the subsequent
divorce suit that followed Erin’s death by her husband, Anthony, that she had no one in
the world on whom she could rely. Despite the fact that during the early years of their
relationship, Mr. Hinckley continued to be infatuated with Jodie Foster, Ms. DeVeau had
no real interest in his other interests at the time, containing her interest in him to their
one-on-one interpersonal interactions. Ms. DeVeau was self-reportedly, solely interested
in communicating with someone who shared her former lifestyle and who would listen to
her, to the extent that she even stated that because of her own depressive background that
preceded killing her daughter, she was not even aware of Mr. Hinckley and his
assassination attempt. Regardless, once she learned of both the attempt and the Jodie
!133
Foster infatuation, she was not particularly concerned with either.
As their relationship continued and she was to learn more of Mr. Hinckley, her
interest did not wane. In fact, she and Mr. Hinckley began to express their love for each
other in notes and gestures when they passed each other in the St. Elizabeths hallways.
Ms. DeVeau was known to stand outside of the John Howard Pavilion in which Mr.
Hinckley was housed and they would have lengthy conversations with her openly yelling
four stories up to him, sometimes for hours at a time. The staff at St. Elizabeths were
well aware of their deepening relationship. In 1985, at Christmas, the couple exchanged
engraved gold ingots with, “we will make it somehow,” the lyric from one of Hinckley’s
songs he had written to profess his love and hope to Ms. DeVeau (Walsh, 1999, p. 61).
Hinckley wrote many love songs for DeVeau who stated that he, ”played his
guitar whenever he could” (Walsh, 1999, p. 63). The lyrics to one of his love songs made
their way into court evidence, as he (allegedly) recorded it for DeVeau, but gave a tape
recording of it to Commander Jeanette Wick, a hospital pharmacist, with whom Hinckley
allegedly had an inappropriate fixation. The song, entitled, And You gave Your Love to
Me featured the lyrics:
You were out in the world
And out of my sight
And you gave your love to me
It was everything I imagined it would be
And you gave your love to me
It was forever. (John Hinckley, Jr., as cited in Walsh, 1999, p .63)
!134
While it is difficult for all but the most accomplished musicologists to accurately
compare and contrast music and lyrics, the phraseology and song styling of this brief
song-snippet clearly bears some resemblance to If I Fell by The Beatles. The line, “And
you gave your love to me,” could perhaps read as a narcissistic interpretation of, “If I
give my heart, To you,” from song of the same title recorded by (but, perhaps ironically
not written by) The Beatles. Such a short segment of lyrics is difficult to analyze, but
profound, nonetheless. The way in which Hinckley fashioned his lyrics, however, is
replete with intentions that mimic Beatles-style popular music inclinations, and suggest
that when he wrote these lyrics, he was considering himself a Beatles-style artist.
Time as an NGRI patient at St. Elizabeths passed quickly for Ms. DeVeau. As she
and her treatment team believed she had regained her sanity as early as six months into
her commitment, her incremental freedoms increased rapidly. By the 18-month mark,
Ms. DeVeau had been placed in a position within the hospital using her social work skills,
assisting other patients in their transitions to outpatient status. At this point, her team felt
she was ready to be released from hospital grounds and to live in an apartment under
hospital supervision. While she lived and worked at the hospital, she continued her
deepening involvement with Mr. Hinckley, becoming informally engaged to him during
this time. Staff and administration, again, were fully aware of her involvement, but
seemed to have no trouble with her continued relationship with a currently confined
patient.
An interview with Mr. Hinckley was published in the March 1983 edition of
Penthouse magazine, which occurred through an open exchange of letters between him
!135
and a writer from that magazine. In that Penthouse interview, Hinckley's flippant attitude
and narcissistic enjoyment of using the media to lend voice to his nihilistic musings was
evident in several quotes, including, "We live in a violent society and I was part of it...I
truly believe that society has been a threat to me, not the other way
around" (Sonnenschein, 1983, p. 164); "the real-life Jodie Foster isn't quite as tough as
the one she portrays on film" (p. 164); and
I've become a strict advocate of gun control. If someone like me can buy six
Saturday Night Specials with ease, there's something drastically wrong with our
gun laws. I'm considering giving my support to the National Coalition to Ban
Handguns. (p. 168)
All of these sentiments embody the external locus of control Mr. Hinckley was readily
embracing at the time. All indict another party, while concurrently applauding and
encouraging interest in his own position. Perhaps the most interesting quote he made
back in 1983 was that "I want the public to know that I am a poet first, and a would-be
assassin last" (Sonnenschein, 1983, p. 168). Following that interview with Mr. Hinckley
and at the suggestion of the hospital, a gag order was issued by the judge overseeing Mr.
Hinckley's involvement with the press during his confinement to St. Elizabeths Mental
Hospital in Washington, D.C. (Clarke, 1990).
The mid-1980s
I remain the mortal enemy of Man
I can’t escape this torture chamber
I can’t begin to be happy
I plot revenge in the dark
I plot escape from this asylum
I follow the example of perverts. (J. W. Hinckley, 1985, p. 195)
On October 4, 1985, a hearing took place during which John Hinckley sued the
!136
federal government with the sole intention of having the institutionally and court-
sanctioned ban on his accessibility to the media lifted. Since 1983, Hinckley had grown
so frustrated with being invisible publicly and unable to espouse his beliefs, that he
pursued legal action on the grounds that his first amendment rights were being violated
by his being forced to avoid all media contact by clinicians and a federal judge. Perhaps
ironically, his defense team cited multiple examples of other assassins (including Mark
David Chapman) and some serial killers (like Ted Bundy) who were interviewed
routinely by the likes of national news figures including Barbara Walters (who,
incidentally, in 1985, interviewed the elder Mr. and Mrs. Hinckley, in what she would
later consider one of the most important interviews of her career; Walters, 2009, p. 409).
John desperately longed to be part of the media folly that followed his involuntary
commitment, and yet, was prohibited from doing so based on the fact that additional
publicity surrounding his attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan would fuel his narcissistic
personality disorder in the collective opinion of his treatment team. His legal team
expressed that his right to free speech was being violated, and that his condition had
improved sufficiently for him to be allowed to speak publicly. In a very rare instance,
Hinckley testified on his own behalf.
I was out of control two years ago and the restrictions placed on me
were appropriate. Looking back now, I can see that I needed mail and
telephone and interview restrictions because my illness caused me to
do and say and write some very stupid and very sick things…It is quite
obvious that the media restriction at St. Elizabeths was written up with
John Hinckley in mind. I am, of course, the most well-known patient
at the hospital and just about the only person that the media cares
about and wants to interview…my obsession with Jodie Foster has
been over for 19 months…I overcame my obsession with Jodie Foster
!137
through intense therapy, medication, and a lot of love from the people
around me. For the first time in years I was glad to be alive and each
day became an exciting challenge and adventure. I now cherish my life
and believe that everyone’s life is sacred and precious. I will never
again harm another human being. (Low et al., 1986, pp. 124-125)
Hinckley’s interest in Jodie Foster had not ended, and his statement reflected the
grandiosity he still very much felt. The judge was not persuaded, and the media order
remained in place, as it does through the present.
In 1986, Hinckley had so impressed his clinicians and the hospital staff that their
view of him had radically changed. He was more compliant, and seemed to be making
more of an effort to conform to the wishes of the treatment staff. Just after Christmas of
that year, Hinckley was granted a 12-hour pass to visit his family at a location his father
had secured (Clarke, 1990, pp. 64-65). The staff was so pleased with Mr. Hinckley’s
(perceived) progress, that they had no problem recommending extended off-campus
visitation with Hinckley’s family, beginning with the 1997 Easter holiday. Hinckley was
reported to have experienced major breakthroughs in therapy throughout 1996/
early-1997, and clinicians believed that he had radically changed and progressed
significantly. This was not actually the case at all. The day before the hearing, it became
known to Hinckley’s attorneys that he had written to Ted Bundy, Lynette “Squeaky”
Fromme, and had requested the address of Charles Manson. According to Clarke (1990),
it became evident to government attorneys and the judge that, “his doctors were
withholding just such pertinent information to enhance Hinckley’s chances for an Easter
holiday with his family” (p. 69). From this point on, and not without good reason, “It
was obvious that government attorneys had some reservations about the ethics and
!138
professional integrity of the St. Elizabeths staff” (Clarke, 1990, p. 70).
Once these incidents were disclosed in court, the judge ordered a search of Mr.
Hinckley’s room at St. Elizabeths. Following completion of that search, the hospital
withdrew its request to the court for his increased freedom based on the findings. A
similar scenario occurred on the eve of a second proposed hearing the very next year as
well. According to a 1999 risk assessment,
In 1987, the Hospital request was withdrawn when it surfaced that Mr.
Hinckley had written to Ted Bundy and had 57 pictures of Jodie Foster
hidden in his room. The night before the 1988 hearing, Mr. Hinckley
revealed that he had requested a nude caricature of Jodie Foster, a fact
of which the Secret Service was already aware, and the request again
was withdrawn. (Feb. 1999 Risk Assessment as cited in United States
v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2003)
The 1990s
Immediately following the assassination attempt and through the issuance of court
and clinical media restrictions, Hinckley had boldly sought attention, and indeed,
received it, both nationally and internationally. In the first few years following the
attempt, Hinckley’s former writings began to emerge, as did new writings- More new
writings from a poet/singer/songwriter/painter than will likely ever been viewed publicly.
In 1995, Hinckley signed an unusual out-of-court agreement that gave the victims of his
assassination attempt who had sued him for damages (all but Reagan, who was not
named in the suit), full and exclusive rights to his life story, including any monetary gains
that could result from his intellectual properties, whether in the form of interviews, the
sale of the rights to his life story, or from any works he might create (songs, poems,
visual art projects, etc.). Brady, Delahanty, and McCarthy had sued for $54 million
!139
dollars in damages, collectively. Victims’ lawyer, Frederic Schwartz, stated that as of
1995, “Hinckley's collected works—poems, letters, songs, court filings, and drawings,
among boxfuls of materials—already fill an entire room” (Dean, 1997). This work,
however, will not be subject to public availability until a planned and intentional release
in conjunction with Schwartz, which has not materialized to this day. While the court
order holds permanently, Hinckley is not likely to offer work publicly as long as the
hospital and court’s mandated media ban is lifted. Therefore, comments, writing, songs,
poems, comments, and paintings Hinckley made prior to or since 1983, with few
exceptions, are generally not available. What is available comes from trial evidence and a
few national magazines, with the most detailed remarks having been made to Penthouse
gentlemen’s magazine in 1983, in addition to a scare few poems and/or lyrics revealed by
his longtime girlfriend, Leslie DeVeau, or his parents.
It was also during the 1990s that Ms. DeVeau began enjoying her newly found
freedom. She was permitted to be responsible for Mr. Hinckley as he was permitted to
stroll the hospital grounds, and during this period, the couple had sex for the first time.
Ms. DeVeau, in her 1999 interview with The New Yorker, details their first encounter.
Following Mr. Hinckley’s increased freedom to walk supervised on hospital grounds (in
this case, with Ms. DeVeau serving as his supervisor), she reported that they found a
semi-remote spot to enjoy a take away pizza and have sex, concealed by a pair of golfing
umbrellas. As Ms. DeVeau reported this in 1999, she continued to be employed by the
hospital. It is unknown if she was ever subject to disciplinary action.
The Hinckley family was well aware of John’s involvement with Ms. DeVeau
!140
from its earliest inception and could not have been more pleased by it. Jo Ann Hinckley
went so far as to state that Ms. DeVeau was John’s “angel” (Grove, 1985) and that “she
had done more for to help him than anyone” (Grove, 1985). They were aware of the
alleged engagement, and were supportive, but not entirely understanding of how such a
marriage might occur.
After four years at St. Elizabeths, Ms. DeVeau was released unconditionally and
continued in her employment there. Throughout the 1990s, though Mr. Hinckley stayed
on as an involuntary patient with no immediate prospect of release, their relationship
continued through daily phone calls, frequent visits, and a shared, self-determined
obligation to feed and care for the feral cats that lived on the grounds of St. Elizabeths.
This was when he was allowed to walk the hospital grounds and after he was moved to a
lower security floor. As Ms. DeVeau grew to enjoy her increasing freedoms, Mr.
Hinckley was still (at least occasionally) enmeshed in the throws of his interest in Jodie
Foster. The extent to which Ms. DeVeau was aware of this continued is unknown.
Suffice it to say, she must have had some idea. While she was not theoretically able to
access his record through the hospital (though she was an employee of the hospital and
this was prior to the age of online patient records), Mr. Hinckley’s substantial and on-
going (at least through the court banning him from media contact in 1983) media
involvement would have given her a clear sense of the fact that his interest in Jodie Foster
continued (Montalbano, 2011, p. 26). In 2000, St. Elizabeths' staff questioned a book
about Jodie Foster that was purchased by Ms. DeVeau, shortly after her breakup from Mr.
Hinckley with whom she remained close friends and communicated daily (Clarke, 1990).
!141
Neither Ms. DeVeau nor Mr. Hinckley confessed to being the reader of this book, and
readership was never determined by the court or the hospital.
The 2000s
According to a 2011, court account, ”Mr. Hyde characterized his moods as stable,
with periods of 'brooding'" (Montalbano, 2011, p. 32). Mr. Hyde has been a clinician
directly working with Mr. Hinckley for a period of many years, who (at least through
November of 2011) would depict him as being actively engaged in creating art, both
musically and visually, while continually delving into at least occasional recurrent
periods of angst. Mr. Hyde further expressed that Mr. Hinckley was able to work through
romantic disappointments and new ideas through the creation of his songs. While Rollo
May (1958) suggests that, "When we are dealing with human beings, no truth has reality
by itself; it is always dependent upon the reality of the immediate relationship” (p. 27),
Mr. Hinckley appears to have had immediate relationships that have translated into the
artistic themes of love and loss. In 2006, Leslie DeVeau ended her relationship with John
Hinckley. By that year, Ms. DeVeau had moved on from St. Elizabeths, and despite her
past crime and illness, was hired by the Washington, D.C., Office of Accountability,
overseeing the operations of St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital. Despite the fact that the
record does not indicate that any disciplinary action ever took place as a result of her
relationship with Mr. Hinckley, Ms. DeVeau had grown tired of answering inquiries
during his hearings for increased freedoms, feeling it was a breech of her privacy. The
two initially parted as friends, but as time passed, the relationship ceased altogether.
Although Mr. Hyde was able to offer limited insight, the reality of Hinckley's
!142
intimate relationship to themes depicted in his artwork (whether musical works or
paintings) remains largely unknown to the public, since he is barred from it being
published. What is known is that Mr. Hinckley often relates his own art to his
interpersonal relationships, particularly those with women. Although much of Mr.
Hinckley's creative work is not available, themes that resonate in the available work or
themes that are mentioned by clinicians in the public record have been examined as part
of this dissertation for patterns and consistencies reflected overall. It is well known
through the court and clinical record that Mr. Hinckley has had a long string of in-patient
romances, and has pursued inappropriate relationships with women who lacked the
interest or position to become involved with him (Jaffe, 2011).
Prior to his being permitted to visit his parents’ home, Hinckley siblings, Scott
and Diane, were somewhat restricted in their interaction with their younger brother
during his years at St. Elizabeths. Both Scott and Diane were concerned enough about
his mental state to intervene on his behalf in the months just prior to his attack on
President Reagan, and both testified at his trial. Despite their limited access to him over
the years, both continue to testify on his behalf during court hearings, but have
continuously, albeit subtly, expressed concerns about his increasing freedoms.
Between 2007 and 2011, John was involved with at least four women who are
referenced in court documents. One in particular, known as Ms. G or Ms. CB in those
documents, is actually Cynthia Bruce, an on-again, off-again patient at St. Elizabeths (she
is, as of this writing, a voluntary inpatient), who was known to experience bouts of florid
psychosis in addition to other undisclosed mental disorders. In 2011, Cynthia Bruce
!143
granted an interview to the British tabloid magazine, The Daily Mail. She spoke of her
engagement to Mr. Hinckley, and a cover photo featured Ms. Bruce and Mr. Hinckley
walking together on an afternoon outing, hand in hand. While she was guarded about the
specifics of their relationship, she expressed her love for John in no uncertain terms. Just
prior to the publication of this feature, however, John had requested that his family permit
him to bring Ms. Bruce, an outpatient still receiving services at St. Elizabeths at the time,
to Williamsburg with him for a family gathering and block party in the Kingsmill
neighborhood in which his mother resides. According to his siblings and mother, all were
concerned about monitoring Ms. Bruce’s condition were she to decompensate during the
visit. John did not take this reaction well, and insisted that it was a racial matter (Ms.
Bruce appears to be of an ethnicity other than fully Caucasian in the photo). Both
siblings and his mother insisted that this was not the case, but their concern for
monitoring both John and Ms. Bruce was their ultimate concern. Clinicians at St.
Elizabeths did not ultimately permit the visit, but the inter-family conflict was significant
enough that discussion of John’s issues of mature judgment around romantic situations
was brought up in the courtroom and his siblings were asked very specifically about the
incident (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2012).
Later Family Relationships
According to one of the most comprehensive psychological risk assessments
conducted on Mr. Hinckley at the request of the court in 2011, Paul Montalbano, Ph.D.,
of St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital in Washington, D.C., expressed that overall, Mr.
Hinckley has successfully navigated the environment at St. Elizabeths for the past 32
!144
years, with only a few non-violent, questionable instances the exception to Mr. Hinckley's
otherwise sterling record of patient compliance (Montalbano, 2011, p. 3). The primary
opinion of hospital administration (with the exception of a few dissenting voices that
represent the government in conjunction with the hospital, primarily Drs. Phillips and
Patterson) is that John Hinckley has responded to treatment extremely well. As a result
of his encouraging therapeutic outcomes, he has been allowed visits to the home of his
mother in Williamsburg, Virginia, since 2006. During these visits, he is required to be
with his now nearly-90-year-old mother, Jo Ann Hinckley most of the time, except for
brief periods during which he is now allowed to drive to appointments in his newly
acquired silver Toyota Avalon, although he must carry a cellular phone with a GPS
tracking device. He is shadowed by the secret service at random intervals, although these
same secret service agents have expressed concerns about a few episodes in which he has
falsified his whereabouts in mandatory self-reporting to St. Elizabeths (United States of
America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2012). Hinckley currently enjoys a high level of
anonymity during his visits to Williamsburg, and only a handful of neighbors in the
exclusive gated community in which he lives with his mother have ever expressed
concern about his visits (Montalbano, 2011, p. 20).
Neighbors in Williamsburg, Virginia, reported seeing the elder and younger John
Hinckley taking walks around the Kings Mill neighborhood in which Jack and JoAnn
Hinckley resided once John was permitted occasional supervised visits. Prior to the death
of Jack Hinckley in 2008, John was permitted regular multiple day visitations to his
parents’ home in Williamsburg, Virginia, and was able to spend time with his father in the
!145
assisted care facility in which he spent his last months. On Tuesday, January 29, 2008,
Jack Hinckley died in an assisted care facility after suffering ill health for a period of
many months at the age of 82. A memorial service was held on Saturday, February 2,
2008, at Williamsburg Presbyterian Church in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he had lived
with his wife, Jo Ann for 22 years (Nelsen Funeral Home, 2008). Prior to the memorial
service at St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital in Washington, D.C., John Hinckley presented
his therapist, Mr. Hyde, with a song he had written about his father entitled, Hero. While
the lyrics have never been made part of the public record, and are therefore unavailable,
as Mr. Hinckley is barred from publication of any music, artworks, or writings, Mr. Hyde
revealed that the song was an homage to the senior Mr. Hinckley, expressing the younger
Hinckley’s deep admiration and respect for him (United States of America v. John W.
Hinckley, Jr., 2009).
According to the testimony of his siblings, Hinckley has dealt successfully with
the death of their father. ”I thought he handled it well," Scott Hinckley said, recalling his
brother's role during the funeral service. "He was cordial when he needed to be, greeting
several hundred people during the day" (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley,
Jr., 2009).
While this homage is befitting of a man who went to great lengths to ensure his
son’s safety, improved mental health, and strong legal defense, prior to and since the time
the younger Hinckley attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, the song is hardly proof of
on an on-going, close relationship between father and son. While John, at age 60,
remains "a kid on perpetual spring break" (Jaffe, 2011, p. 62), with his days between St.
!146
Elizabeths Mental Hospital and his furloughed days in Williamsburg with his mother
typically consisting of playing his guitar and writing songs, having an occasional
massage, having dinners out with family, walking around Colonial Williamsburg or his
neighborhood, and working on paintings, his father’s life experience was anything but
similar.
Jack Hinckley was close to his eldest son, Scott. So close, in fact, that when Scott
graduated college, he went to work as a vice-president at Vanderbilt Energy and Oil, Co.,
with his father. In 1982, Clarence Netherland (who was then the acting chairman of the
board at Vanderbilt Oil) described Jack Hinckley as “a typical mid-America Jack
Armstrong all-American man…a pleasant, aggressive, smart, nice-looking guy. Every
one likes Jack and always has” (Henry & Brown, 1981). He went on to describe the
similarities between Scott and Jack in stating, “Scott is very similar to his dad. Maybe not
as effervescent as his dad, but self-confident. The two are very similar in personality,
appearance, and philosophies” (Henry & Brown, 1981).
Scott and Jack were parent and child, but were also adult friends in a relationship
informed by their shared work interest, shared recreational interests, and their shared
values. Their family concerns were also shared, and included their ideas about John, and
their shared concerns about his lack of future prospects, in addition to their shared
concerns about his inability to function in, what they mutually considered to be, adult
society.
Jack Hinckley made sure that John received physical and psychological help
when John requested it, and when the family believed intervention was appropriate
!147
throughout John’s years of emerging adulthood prior to the assassination attempt. Jack
felt remiss that he had never formed the bonds with John that he had with Scott, but
believed them to be very different personalities, with his elder son, Scott, being more like
himself (J. Hinckley et al., 1985). While he may not have been wrong in his belief, he
did not realize the depths to which John’s personality had been compromised by the
effects of mental illness until it was too late.
Jack Hinckley, despite having been perceived by John as the more stern parent,
committed the remainder of his life to the establishment of a non-profit corporation called
Mental Health America, which served to educate the general public about mental illness
and resources available for those with mental illness, and he participated in John’s
therapeutic process, moving to Virginia from Colorado in order to be closer to his son and
participate in family therapy and in the supervision of whatever visitation he was granted.
In typical, driven, Jack Hinckley-style, he expressed the goal of his non-profit
organization in a 1985, Washington Post article as follows
Our goal for the American Mental Health Fund is to conquer mental
illness with research. We're not out there to deal with mental illness.
We're not out there to help the people who are suffering from it now --
even though their needs are horrendous. We just decided that we're
going to conquer it. (Grove, 1985)
The American Mental Health Fund did not conquer mental illness and was never
as successful as Jack Hinckley would have hoped. Eventually, the non-profit was
abandoned.
Jo Ann Hinckley has stood unwaveringly by her son throughout his life,
particularly since the trial following the assassination attempt, and continuing through the
!148
present. Recently, John Hinckley has navigated his way through years of court
proceedings that have significantly increased his freedom from St. Elizabeths Mental
Hospital and extended his visits to his mother's home in Williamsburg, Virginia, to an
increased length of 17 days each month for an as yet-undetermined period (contingent on
the ruling of the judge in his current hearings), which will eventually commence in
permanent convalescent leave, a completely unsupervised release from St. Elizabeths that
would essentially mean freedom for Mr. Hinckley. He is quoted in court documents as
stating,
I don't have a microphone in my hand. I don't have the video camera. So no one
can hear my music. No one can see my art. I have these other aspects of my life
that no one knows about. I'm an artist. I'm a musician. Nobody knows that. They
just see me as the guy who tried to kill Reagan. (Montalbano, 2011, p. 10)
This comment reflects almost verbatim, the position Mr. Hinckley espoused in 1983, to
Penthouse magazine in which he stated, “I am a poet first and a would-be assassin
last” (Sonnenschein, 1983). Despite his increased freedom, little has changed in over 34
years in his day-to-day experience, and this is reflected in his recent comment.
Ray Hyman's concept of “suckering methods” (Myers, 2010, p. 572) espouses the
idea that those who are capable of honing in on and exploiting the vulnerabilities of
others, will. When the current relationship of John and Jo Ann Hinckley is considered,
Hyman’s comment resounds as pertinent upon reading from the court findings relative to
Hinckley’s request for increased freedoms in 2011.
Hinckley himself has complained that his support system consists only
of his mother and professionals. But the reason for this is Hinckley's
own behavior. A review of Hinckley's proposed itineraries for his visits
and the Hospital's post-visit reports since the date of the last court
!149
order reveals that, with few exceptions, Hinckley repeatedly engages
in the same limited activities.... And, while the post-visit reports reveal
that Hinckley has varied his other activities among the days of his
trips, the visits as a whole invariably consist of trips to the exact same
stores and dinners at the same restaurants. On only two trips since the
last Court order has Hinckley ever engaged in activities outside of this
paradigm.
Hinckley has developed a routine of engaging in solitary pursuits that
have no likelihood of permitting him to make friends or increase the
support system that his treating physicians, and Hinckley himself,
view as critical to preventing him from decompensating. Neither does
Hinckley appear to have demonstrated initiative with regard to the
functioning of his daily life. (United States of America v. John W.
Hinckley, Jr., 2012)
Just as he grabbed her leg as a toddler and would not let go, John, at 60-years-old,
continues to engage in a similar pattern with his mother, even with the potentiality of
ever-increasing freedoms based on his own self-sufficiency and self-efficacy looming.
While court documents state that Hinckley participates in household chores while visiting
his mother, specifically washing dishes and taking out the trash, he is still incredibly
bound to her for his day-to-day sustenance and social interaction. Further, Mr. Hinckley
is known to have requested that his mother do most of the driving in the past, although he
was capable of driving with a learner’s permit, because of his disdain for driving at night
and in traffic. He has also relied on her to make the necessary telephone calls to arrange
his appointments and lessons while on visits to her home in Williamsburg (United States
of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2012).
Essentially, John Hinckley has remained bound to his mother in the fashion of an
overly reliant teenager, despite the fact that he is a man who himself is entering later
adulthood, for whom the ability to prove to the court that he can live and function
!150
independently is of extreme importance. While Mrs. Hinckley remains intent on ensuring
John’s compliance with the court and St. Elizabeths, and on ensuring his personal
comfort during his visits to her home, the question of whether her interventions and care
serve as empowering or enabling factors is of great concern to the court, and is key in
considering the relational dynamics of this mother-son duo. Concern also exists among
court officials and treatment providers about what will happen when Mrs. Hinckley is no
longer available due to death or disability. No determinations have been made as of the
2015 hearings.
Despite having allowed Mr. Hinckley extended visits to his mother’s home - 17
days each month with the hopes of establishing deeper ties to the Williamsburg
community - concern has been expressed that he has done little in terms of job-seeking in
the Hampton Roads, Virginia area, and that he has done little to form ties with anyone
outside of his care providers and his mother (Montalbano, 2011, p. 7). The fact that his
narcissistic personality disorder remains clinically present might explain this dichotomy.
While his mother has worked tirelessly for optimum therapeutic conditions for him and
taken on his mantle of responsibility as her own, Mr. Hinckley's behavior suggests that
such behavior on her part is appropriate, and that he need not trouble himself with regard
to conforming to measures of compliance as long as she is willing and able to do it for
him. Court records verify these accounts, stating that “Scott Hinckley has, correctly,
characterized Hinckley's behavior as adolescent and noted that Hinckley relies upon his
mother to make calls for the appointments that he is required to complete during his visits
to his mother's hometown" (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2012).
!151
Court records also indicate that as recently as 2015, Mr. Hinckley was still sharing
driving responsibilities with his mother, despite the fact that he held a full Virginia
operator’s license at the time. While Scott Hinckley and Diane Hinckley Sims have both
offered testimony expressing their belief that John is no longer a danger to himself or
others, and that they have observed no signs of decompensation or dangerousness, Scott,
in particular, demonstrates little reluctance, when asked, about his brother’s immaturity
and lack of motivation to take on even the smallest of tasks when their mother is prepared
to handle them on his behalf.
In spite of these concerns, Hinckley’s siblings have stated that John has been
conscientious about observing the terms of his conditional release in their observations;
he has demonstrated appropriate emotions and concern toward his family members, and
that he has not been reluctant to participate in family activities. While neither of the
Hinckley siblings expressed any seriously grave concerns surrounding John’s current
romantic relationships with women, court documents revealed the Cynthia Bruce incident
- a family incident in which Scott and Diane conceded that their brother did not
demonstrate sound judgment, so much so, that it caused a conflict between the three
siblings and their mother.
While Scott and Diane do advocate for their brother, their (presumably) truthful
concerns about his lack of judgment are not confined to his romantic endeavors. In their
respective testimonies, Scott and Diane have independently acknowledged that while in
Williamsburg during extended periods, John, as Diane said specifically, “could have tried
harder to pursue volunteer opportunities, and that in their view his failure to do so
!152
indicated some immaturity” (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2009).
Scott Hinckley has testified that it is debatable whether Williamsburg is the optimal site
for Hinckley to attempt to live on his own permanently, but shares the sentiment of Diane
Hinckley Sims in their expressing that neither believe that Dallas, Texas, the city they
both call home is a better fit (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2012).
While both Hinckley siblings openly expressed feelings of love and concern for
their younger brother, both indicated some feelings of ambivalence around his attempts to
integrate himself into his mother’s community, and while neither indicated concerns
around his dangerousness, both seem protective of their mother and fully aware of John’s
continuing immaturity. Though both seemed to feel compassion towards Mr. Hinckley,
neither seemed to fully embrace the idea that he is capable of undertaking independent
living, based on his continued reliance on their mother and her continued coddling of her
youngest child. Neither Scott nor Diane has fully conceded to John’s plan for full
convalescent leave, though neither have outright opposed it.
Going Forward
In a statement issued by Ronald C. Machen, Jr., United States attorney for the
District of Columbia, he explained that
According to an autopsy report prepared by the chief medical examiner’s office,
and finalized on Dec. 4, 2014, the traumatic brain injury sustained by Mr. Brady
created difficulty managing oral secretions and food and led to aspiration
pneumonia and other chronic diseases. At the time of his death, Mr. Brady was
suffering from aspiration pneumonia. The chief medical examiner thus concluded
that Mr. Brady’s death was determined to be the result of a “gunshot wound of
head and consequences thereof.” (United States Attorney’s Office, 2015)
John Hinckley was deeply concerned upon learning that the death of James Brady
!153
was ruled a homicide by a Virginia medical examiner. According to the most recent
independent forensic psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Hinckley, authored by Dr. James
Patterson at the request of the court and released April 8, 2015, Hinckley’s art therapist,
Mr. Verne Hyde, called the incident an “enormous stressor” (Patterson, 2015, p. 7), and
conveyed to him that the
"James Brady thing was huge." He told me that when he heard Mr.
Brady had died, he called Mr. Hinckley who was in Williamsburg and
they worked through that and subsequently got the notice of Mr.
Brady's death being ruled a homicide. (Patterson, 2015, p. 56)
Dr. Patterson also recounted his interview with Hinckley’s Williamsburg-area
psychiatrist, Dr. Giorgi-Guarnieri.
She said that Mr. Hinckley was "extremely upset" when he told her
about it and that "he felt bad," but that he also said "I can't go to prison
for that. I'll never survive. I don't know how this could
happen." (Patterson, 2015, p. 23)
Once the threat of facing charges in the Brady case was dismissed following a
statement from the United States attorney general’s office released on January 2, 2015,
Hinckley began to focus on the freedoms that would permit him to begin permanent
convalescent leave. Hearings began on Wednesday, April 22, 2015, to determine whether
or not John W. Hinckley would be eligible for release eventuating in permanent
convalesce leave from St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital. During the first day of hearings,
his attorney, Barry W. Levine, expressed that Mr. Hinckley has continued to exhibit no
indication of dangerousness and has been a model of patient compliance during the past
months, beginning in December of 2013, in which he was granted extended monthly
visits of 17 days per month to his mother’s home in Williamsburg, Virginia. During that
!154
time, Levine stated that Hinckley has developed a new hobby (photography), that he has
found a female friend in the Williamsburg area, and that he has performed well in his
volunteer position in the patient cafe at Eastern State Mental Hospital and had recently
acquired a food handler’s card. Hinckley also expressed that he wanted to start a band,
and according to Dr. Patterson (2015), “He continued he would ‘like to get a professional
sound’ on his songs and have them published but said he does not want to violate the
media clause” (p. 60). Additionally, Hinckley has made a few friends through the support
group he now attends for people with mental illness, sponsored by the National
Association for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), one in particular - a new female friend
discussed in the report as Ms. L.
One of Hinckley’s therapists, Mr. Beffa, described the relationship between
Hinckley and Ms. L in the following terms:
John and Ms. L. are good friends, that there has been no sexual
involvement, and "it kind of reminds me of, like, what adolescents
might do." He also noted that when Ms. L. has visited, they watch TV,
listen to music, and recorded some of his songs because he is hoping to
get some kind of a band going. (Patterson, 2015, p. 14)
Irrespective of his newfound relationship with Ms. L, who is known to have a
history of substance abuse issues and bipolar disorder, Hinckley continues his
relationship with Cynthia Bruce (Ms. CB) back at St. Elizabeths. Cynthia Bruce remains
the primary girlfriend of record of John Hinckley. He and Ms. Bruce met while she was a
fellow patient approximately six years ago. Ms. Bruce is known to experience
psychiatric challenges that include psychotic episodes and acute symptoms of anxiety.
Unlike Mr. Hinckley, however, Ms. Bruce has never been admitted as a forensic patient.
!155
As he expressed to Dr. Patterson (2015),
Mr. Hinckley and I discussed his relationship with Ms. CB, and he told
me "it has been going okay" but that she "has her ups and downs with
her mental illness and she is not as stable as Ms. L." He continued that
Ms. CB "gets hospitalized quite often and it is not an easy
relationship," but when not hospitalized she comes to the Hospital to
see him and they talk on the phone whenever he is home or at the
hospital. (p. 61)
Despite the fact that Hinckley has expressly stated to his treatment team that he
would not continue to pursue a relationship with Ms. Bruce if he is to live in
Williamsburg, he will not cease his contact with her when he is in Washington, D.C. As
far as Ms. Bruce is concerned, the two are still involved in a serious and on-going
relationship. When asked specifically about the understanding Ms. Bruce has of his
transition to Williamsburg,
Mr. Hinckley acknowledged that maybe Ms. CB is "not totally getting
it, but I can't help that," adding "she is attached to me." Mr. Hinckley
told me that when he has "put his foot down" with Ms. CB and told her
"not to do something," she has not done that "something" over the past
five or six years they have been in a relationship. He gave as an
example of her wanting to come to the hearing in April and he told her
"absolutely not," and he believes she will not because he was so stern.
(Patterson, 2015, p. 62)
Despite Hinckley believing that Ms. Bruce will follow his orders, she remains a
woman suffering from schizophrenia who often becomes floridly psychotic, and who is
known to experience full-blown panic attacks (Montalbano, 2011). Several years ago, he
gave her a ring, which he claimed was given in friendship; however, she viewed it, and
perhaps continues to view, as an engagement ring. Patterson further spoke with Dr.
Sidney Binks, one of Hinckley’s therapists at St. Elizabeths. Dr. Binks stated that
!156
he believes Mr. Hinckley's view of Ms. CB has changed from a
romantic relationship to care giving because he "did not really
appreciate the depth of her illness" and to come around to the insights
and conclusions he has, "he had to really live it." Dr. Binks added "it
took him a long time to fully understand that.” (Patterson, 2015, p. 49)
Yet, Hinckley has not yet broken ties in any meaningful way with Ms. Bruce,
despite the fact that she faces a potentially traumatic adjustment from his transitioning
from St. Elizabeths to Williamsburg. Mr. Hinckley does not seem to appreciate that Ms.
Bruce might have to deal with feelings around his departure from her day-to-day life. No
one at the hospital has dissuaded Hinckley from continuing his contact with Ms. Bruce,
and no comments have become part of the available record that reflect any plan to protect
the health and safety of Ms. Bruce as Mr. Hinckley exits her life and he transitions
permanently to Williamsburg.
As of the 2015 report compiled by Dr. Raymond Patterson, St. Elizabeths
Hospital presents the following official diagnosis for John W. Hinckley:
Axis I 298.90 Psychotic Disorder NOS, in remission
296.36 Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, in full remission
Axis II 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder
301.20 Schizoid Personality Disorder (premorbid)
Axis III 550.90 Unilateral Inguinal hernia
477.9 Allergic Rhinitis, unspecified
564.00 Unspecified Constipation
473.9 Unspecified Sinusitis
530.11 Reflux Esophagitis
Axis IV Criminal justice system
Axis V Current GAF=65, Highest GAF in past year=65 (Patterson,
2015, p. 5)
!157
Further, an evaluation of risk factors entered into the record by the hospital as part of
supporting Mr. Hinckley being granted permanent convalescent leave reads as follows:
The recommendation for 501(e) Motion, dated 9/26/14, was submitted
by VJ Hyde, MT-BC, Clinical Administrator, to the Forensic Review
Board at St. Elizabeths Hospital. In that recommendation, Mr. Hyde
listed the risk factors related to the instant offense as:
1. Depression
2. Isolation
3. Psychosis
4. Lack of insight into mental illness
5. Personality Disorder
6. Access to weapons
7. Lack of family support
In addition, Mr. Hyde listed risk factors that have become evident or
developed since the instant offense to include:
8. History of suicide attempts
9. Difficulty in relationships with females
10. Deception (p. 4)
Although John Hinckley has not attempted suicide since February 13, 1983, the
two factors that have become evident since the offense are particularly worthy of note.
With regard to his difficulty in relationships with females, Hinckley has had and
continues to have difficulties with using good judgment in the context of a relationship.
As Ms. Bruce continues to believe they are together, for example, Hinckley goes forward
with a plan to move to Williamsburg without any evidence of significant concern for her
!158
fate once he is gone. In fact, in his interview (which was conducted while Ms. Bruce was
an inpatient at the hospital), Hinckley informed Patterson (2015) "it sounds cold to say
this, but there's nothing I miss about St. Elizabeths except my cats" (p. 59).
In the past, Hinckley was known to be involved with a female patient referred to
in the 2011, hearing transcripts and evaluative reports as Ms. DB around 2009. By the
summer of that year, the record indicates that Hinckley had also become romantically
involved with her cousin whom he met while she visited Ms. DB. The record reflects
that Ms. DB died that fall. The cause of her death is not known. He was also involved
with a Ms. M who was a patient living with another man. At some point, he is known to
have engaged in sexual behaviors with a woman who was unable to communicate
(Montalbano, 2011). He has also attempted to pursue relationships with various fellow
volunteers and hospital workers, offering them his paintings in several instances.
Aside from his poor judgment with women, Hinckley has continued with
deceptive behaviors, though more recently, perhaps less than in the past. It cannot be
firmly established how many times Hinckley has been deceitful in the reporting of his
activities, as the Secret Service does not follow him every single day. What is known is
that even as recently as 2014, Hinckley went somewhere he had not indicated he was
going and only reported it the next day. His Williamsburg area psychiatrist, Dr. Giorgi-
Guarnieri, expressed that, "80% of the time John gets the right understanding of what he
is supposed to report" (Patterson, 2015, p. 21), and did not seem overly concerned with
his mis- or late-reporting.
!159
Hinckley has also been deceptive with regard to availability of funds to support
his release. Currently, Hinckley is behind literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in
legal fees. At one point, the law firm that represents him requested to be removed from
the case due to non-payment. The judge would not dismiss them. According to
Patterson’s (2015) report,
Hinckley told Mr. Beffa that he was "very disappointed and very chagrined" that
his brother Scott had refused to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills,
but was "embarrassed and thankful" that Barry Levine had continued to defend
him. (p. 17)
Until recent hearings actually took place in April 2015, Hinckley maintained that
he had a trust fund and that there would be plenty of money to cover the $5,000-10,000
per month in charges his family absorbs for his various therapies in the Williamsburg
area. He had also maintained that his siblings would purchase a condominium for him to
live in when his mother eventually becomes unavailable. Interviews by Patterson with
Scott Hinckley and Dianne Hinckley Sims contradicted almost everything John had
indicated. In his interview,
Scott Hinckley reported that his brother John has no trust fund and no
money because what money he had was spent on legal expenses, and
currently only family and possible real estate profits from the sale of
their mother's home when she is no longer living in the home would be
sources of both clinical services and housing for his brother. In terms
of housing, Scott Hinckley said his family does not want him brother
staying at the "lowest level" and renting an apartment or condo might
be possible for that his brother could stay at their mother's house for
the short term but if their mother is not available then the family's
intention is to sell that family home. He added, "within reason we'll
help with housing costs" but added it would "not be my mother's house
and we would not buy a condo.” (Patterson, 2015, p. 47)
!160
While both siblings stressed to Patterson that they would never allow John to
become homeless or not have access to his medications, both agreed that the current
$5,000-10,000 per month cost is not sustainable over the long term, even with the sale of
their mother’s home (valued at less than $500,000) applied to the costs. When Jo Ann
Hinckley was asked about arrangements should she no longer be available, Patterson
(2015) expressed
I told her that it comes up in court that if she were no longer available,
either because she became ill and moved to assisted living or a
hospital, decided to move to Dallas or change her location, or passed
away, what would be the plan for John down the line, and she reported
"We don't talk about it." She reaffirmed that "her home is John's
home," and that if he wants to stay there that is fine and if he does not
that is fine as well. (p. 46)
The lack of preparation on part of the clinical team was based, once again, on
their belief in what Hinckley had to say. With plans for convalescent leave in process, a
major new risk factor has emerged. Yet, it is not likely to prevent leave from taking place
- the family will have to agree upon and file a financial plan, however. Diminished
family support is of great concern to Dr. Giorgi-Guernieri who stated,
So you talk about a risk factor. There is your biggest one. Not John's empathy, not
John's narcissism, not John's dangerousness, but the -- if no family support, it's a
whole different situation. All his visits have been highly supported by the family.
(Patterson, 2015, p. 26)
This is a risk factor that could have been mitigated for, however, if Hinckley had not
deliberately misrepresented his financial situation to his treatment team.
!161
Chapter 5: Discussion
Introduction
This dissertation examined the case of John W. Hinckley, Jr., with the goal of
answering the following research questions:
1. Did John W. Hinckley, Jr., truly suffer from a mental disorder at the time of his
assassination attempt on former President Ronald Reagan that prevented him from
being responsible for his actions on March 30, 1981?
2. What were the possible factors existent in his early life that influenced his
homicidal endeavors; and since his admittance to St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital
in 1982, what indications of full or partial remission of his pathological symptoms
have (or have not) indicated the extent to which he has been and will continue to
be able (or unable) to assume responsibility for himself under the current
stipulations of incrementally increasing periods of conditional release, eventually
leading to full, unsupervised permanent convalescent leave?
3. Further, how does the case of John W. Hinckley compare to that of other
assassins/would-be assassins (particularly to the cases of Arthur Bremer,
attempted assassin of Governor George Wallace, and Mark David Chapman,
assassin of John Lennon) who committed crimes with similar aspirations of
notoriety, but who were found guilty of their crimes; and how might he have been
influenced by Bremer and Chapman?
4. Also, how does the case of John Hinckley compare to those of other individuals
found not guilty by reason of insanity?
!162
5. The ultimate question, however, is, who is John Warnock Hinckley, Jr. - past,
present, and future- and how can this portrait be determined?
Each of these questions is specifically discussed in this chapter through further
examination of the data discovered during the course of the research.
Research Question One
Did John W. Hinckley, Jr., truly suffer from a mental disorder at the time of his
assassination attempt on former President Ronald Reagan that prevented him from being
responsible for his actions on March 30, 1981?
When John Hinckley, Jr., attempted to assassinate the president; the fact that he
was in a depressed state was not disputed by any party to the trial. He had been
prescribed anti-depressants by the family physician, Dr. Benjamin, and was under the
care of psychiatrist Dr. John Hopper in Colorado. While even Hopper recognized his
depressed state, Hopper stopped short of diagnosing Hinckley with a major depressive
disorder per se. During the assessments and evaluations that were conducted on Hinckley
to support the defense and prosecution, the lead psychiatrist for the defense, William
Carpenter,
diagnosed John Hinckley as suffering from a major depressive
disorder and from process schizophrenia, a form of illness that begins
in adolescence or early adulthood and progresses to a severe disorder
marked by breaks from reality, magical thinking, and ideas of
reference strong enough to be delusions-the belief that normal events,
like President Reagan waving at the crowd or Jodie Foster appearing
on television, were happening just for Hinckley. (Caplan, 1984, p. 68)
While Carpenter’s testimony brought schizophrenia and psychosis into the
courtroom lexicon and allowed lead defense attorney, Vince Fuller, to create doubt about
!163
Hinckley’s sanity within jurors, “process schizophrenia” was in fact a term that Carpenter
himself had created. As the editor of the Journal of Schizophrenia, at the time, “process
schizophrenia” was a theoretical concept - not a tested, researched, or recognized
diagnosis- that Carpenter was contemplating at the time that happened to resemble
Hinckley’s symptoms. In his 2011 article for The New York Times, Carpenter recognized
The insanity defense is not based on the presence of illness, but on
whether the person, because of the illness, met the standard at the time
when the crime was committed. Science has not, and probably cannot,
answer this question. This is for the jury. If the diagnosis of psychosis
is in doubt, the jury may conclude that the defense is not based on a
qualifying diagnosis. If psychosis is present, the jury must the weigh
all the information and determine whether, at the time of the crime, the
standard is met.
Despite the fact that Carpenter now acknowledges that science is uncertain in allowing
clinicians to make a determination as to whether or not the individual met the standard
for insanity at the exact moment an offense was committed, he maintained throughout the
Hinckley trial that Hinckley was absolutely unable to conform his conduct due to mental
illness (process schizophrenia, specifically, activated by situational factors like the
president’s wave in Hinckley’s direction) when he shot Reagan, Delahanty, McCarthy,
and Brady.
Hinckley was at no point recognized as a “White House case.” As Dr. E. Fuller
Torrey explained,
A White House case classically is someone who comes to the guard at
the White House and says they have a special message for the
president, or they try to go over the wall. We’ve seen dozens. They
almost always have paranoid schizophrenia, and they almost always
respond to medication. (Yardley, 2011)
!164
Even Carpenter stopped short of issuing a fully syndromal diagnosis of any form
of schizophrenia. Park Dietz, testifying for the prosecution had determined through his
evaluations that Mr. Hinckley, “was not psychotic at any time” (Linder, 2009; United
States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982), and that Hinckley was a manipulative
young man, fully capable of organizing and executing a plan, who was consciously and
intellectually capable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions. Dietz believed
Mr. Hinckley was merely infatuated with Jodie Foster, not obsessed; that he intentionally
committed his crimes with the goal of achieving worldwide fame much like the Beatles,
that he had so desperately sought to gain since his youth. Hinckley, Dietz believed,
committed criminal acts because of his narcissistic personality disorder that led him to
seek fame at any cost. His opinion was supported by Dr. Sally Johnson, a psychiatrist at
Butner Medical Facility, who, after 57 hours of clinical interaction with Mr. Hinckley,
testified that he was not, nor had he ever been, psychotic. According to Caplan (1984),
“Johnson also revealed in court that she didn’t believe Hinckley shot the President to win
Jodie Foster’s love” (p. 88).
If Dr. Dietz was correct in assuming that Hinckley sought fame the easiest way
possible, it is likely that Hinckley, who wished to be a singer/songwriter along the lines
of John Lennon, yet could not bring himself to meet other musicians or perform publicly,
let alone approach record executives, had to find a way to gain fame without long-term
effort. Having witnessed Mark David Chapman gain instant notoriety in November of
1980, Hinckley’s fantasies about shooting someone for fame became not so much
fantastic, but practical scenarios. When one assassinates or attempts to assassinate a
!165
political figure, let alone a sitting president, notoriety is guaranteed. When Mr. Hinckley
crouched in a marksman’s stance on March 30, 1981, he was aware of this as fact, not
delusion.
Dietz reminded his audience that, on the night of the shooting,
Hinckley had asked if the Academy Awards would still be televised, or
if his deed would push them off the air. In an interview, Hinckley told
Dietz, “The setup was so unbelievably perfect,” when he went to the
Washington Hilton. Dietz asked Hinckley if he had succeeded on
March 30th. Hinckley, Dietz recounted, had smiled and answered,
“Yeah, it worked.” The defendant had gone on, “You know, actually, I
accomplished exactly what I wanted to without exception.” (Clarke,
1990, p. 72)
While the likelihood is high that Hinckley was suffering from major depressive
disorder, or at the very least, dysthmic disorder, according to Dietz and Johnson,
respectively, at the time of the shootings, and while all parties to his examination during
the course of the trial (and throughout the years that have followed) seem to concur on a
diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, only those paid by the defense team
suggested schizophrenia or the presence of psychosis and often in the most vague of
terms. John Hinckley wanted to become famous and knew that he could do so by
committing an outrageous and highly public act, like shooting the president. Hinckley’s
choices, prior to and the day of the shooting, were not the result of psychosis. While
Hinckley was influenced by mental illness, his actions were not beyond his control during
the moment his crime took place. As Park Dietz testified,
These choices, his description of deliberation, of decision making,
indicate that he was conforming his conduct to his own wishes, that he
had the ability to control, to think, to decide, and that he did so. He
controlled his conduct. He decided what to do, and he carried out his
goals. (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982)
!166
Thus, at the time of the assassination attempt, Mr. Hinckley acted deliberately-
not as the result of an irresistible impulse- and was aware that the act he was committing
was legally wrong. As in the case of many assassins or mass murderers who seek
notoriety as their ultimate endgame, Hinckley was clear on the nature of his actions. As
James Alan Fox, a criminologist expressed in a New York Times interview, “They’re not
out of touch with reality. They don’t hear voices. They don’t think the people they’re
shooting are gophers” (Kleinfield, Buettner, Chen, & Stewart, 2015). Hinckley knew
with absolute certainty that he would gain notoriety as a result of his actions, and, while
he did have some sort of infatuation with her, the Jodie Foster-angle simply added focus
and narrative to his quest for fame. The jury found Hinckley not guilty by reason of
insanity because they felt the widened sulci argument and the Taxi Driver fascination
created enough of a doubt to prevent a finding of guilty.
Research Question Two
What were the possible factors existent in his early life that influenced his
homicidal endeavors; and since his admittance to St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital in 1982,
what indications of full or partial remission of his pathological symptoms have (or have
not) indicated the extent to which he has been and will continue to be able (or unable) to
assume responsibility for himself under the current stipulations of incrementally
increasing periods of conditional release, eventually leading to full, unsupervised
permanent convalescent leave?
On dangerousness. No discussion of the case of John W. Hinckley, Jr., can begin
or end without reference to the question, “Is he dangerous?”
!167
According to Clarke (1990), “Dangerousness is not a trait that can be diagnosed.
It is…the complex interaction of personality and situational factors” (p. 125). The
personality and situational factors affecting John Hinckley are many and varied: From his
infatuation with Jodie Foster, to his love of John Lennon and the Beatles, to his complex
family dynamics and relationships with women, through his continuum of deceitful
accounting to clinicians, to his ultimate obsession with fame; dangerousness becomes a
relative term. Has John Hinckley, when personality and situational factors converged at a
particular time, been a dangerous person? Unequivocally, yes. Could John Hinckley now,
nearly 35 years after his assassination attempt be a dangerous person again? A qualified
yes, with the definition of dangerousness and an examination of all of the influences of
his prior dangerous behavior being held in situationally-specific regard.
"The psychiatrists may think that Mr. Hinckley is cured, but the truth is that Mr.
Hinckley has demonstrated deception in the past," said Joe DiGenova, former deputy
chief U.S. attorney. "He's very, very bright. He's good at making people believe things
about him that aren't true" (CNN, 2013). Hinckley has a history of deception that dates
back to his creation of a fictitious girlfriend and several falsifications of having been
robbed in an effort to gain continued monetary assistance from his family. More recently,
Hinckley has falsified his whereabouts on itineraries that have been contradicted by
Secret Service reports. Staff at St. Elizabeths maintain that Hinckley is not a danger, and
mostly, exercises good judgment. According to Clarke (1990), however, “it is a wonder
that Hinckley’s doctors continue to place so much stock in what he says about
himself” (p. 9).
!168
A United States of America v. Lewis C. Ecker (1976) ruling reads, “As this court
has long recognized, insanity acquittees are an exceptionally dangerous class.” In
attempting to secure greater freedoms for Mr. Hinckley, his defense team has, rather
ironically, invoked the DeVeau precedent in an attempt to discuss dangerousness as a
measurable, legal concept that can be assessed based on existing standards. According to
this precedent,
Dangerousness is a characteristic that encompasses two elements. In
evaluating dangerousness, the court must consider the magnitude of
the harm threatened by release, and the likelihood of the harm
occurring in the reasonable future. (Cross v. Harris, 1969)
Mr. Hinckley has indeed been a model patient at St. Elizabeths, and has done
nothing to indicate that he would pose an immediate danger to himself or others.
However, Mr. Hinckley not only continues to be deceptive, but he continues to engage in
predatory behavior towards women, which is perhaps dangerousness, albeit in a different
form.
Noticeably absent from the evaluations and comments of the clinicians who have
evaluated Mr. Hinckley is any discussion of his continuing predatory behaviors.
Beginning with his sexual attraction to Jodie Foster as an 11-year-old prostitute in Taxi
Driver - an attraction best described as a pedophilic in nature based on his age at the time
of viewing (he was 21-years old). This progressed through his actual encounters with
under-aged prostitutes he intentionally targeted for their youth, through his stalking
behaviors directed toward St. Elizabeths female staff members, and through his current
dalliances with female patients at St. Elizabeths, who are known to be psychiatrically
!169
compromised. Mr. Hinckley has continuously exhibited a pattern of behavior in which he
seeks sexual partners who, for statutory or psychiatric reasons, have at best, a
compromised ability or, at worst, an inability, to consent to his sexual advances. Court
and clinical records indicate that Mr. Hinckley has had sexual contact with a fellow
patient who was described as profoundly psychotic and who experienced considerable
difficulties with communication (Montalbano, 2011, p. 12). Clinicians fail to state with
confidence that she was able to consent to Mr. Hinckley’s overtures, and focus of on Mr.
Hinckley presenting with less agitation based on the fact that he “likes to have a
companion” (Montalbano, 2011). This on-going trajectory of predatory behavior
compromises the mental health and safety of the very female patients that the staff at St.
Elizabeths are designated to care for and protect. While Mr. Hinckley is ultimately
responsible for his behaviors, the concern of clinicians around his “difficulty in
relationships with females” (Patterson, 2015, p. 7) seems dismissive of the more serious,
and perhaps, more sinister and predatory nature of these relationships. The presentation
of this sort of behavior as merely questionable suggests that clinicians essentially validate
Mr. Hinckley’s choice of companions with little concern for the welfare of those women
as psychiatrically compromised human beings. While Mr. Hinckley is racially of
majority, from an affluent family, and viewed as a successful patient no longer
compromised by any form of psychosis, the women with whom he is involved reflect the
more common demographics of the majority of St. Elizabeths patients. They are
generally women of color from impoverished circumstances, who are psychiatrically
acutely compromised and often floridly psychotic. While Mr. Hinckley is from a family
!170
that continues to provide him with a top-notch team of attorneys and outside clinicians,
the women he is involved with have no such teams at their disposal.
Despite Mr. Hinckley’s continuing episodes in which he is deceitful, his history of
overall outstanding patient compliance cannot be ignored.
Release and family oversight. With regard to Mr. Hinckley's current request for
greater freedoms that would entail self-sufficiency, as Myers (2011) states: “People are
often most overconfident when most incompetent, mainly because it is difficult for them
to recognize their own incompetence without having competence in the first place” (p.
583). Myers further asserts that “self-serving bias, which prompts most of us to rate
ourselves as above average, appears to be almost universal” (p. 587).
Particularly with regard to cases of narcissistic personality disorder, a self-serving bias
and lack of insight with regard to the competency of one's own basic life skills, is not a
surprising occurrence. The question that emerges with regard to John Hinckley is
essentially whether he has acquired the skills needed to live independently or not. His
own perspective, while meaningful, is colored by his disorder, and may or may not
accurately reflect his actual level of competence with regard to basic life skills.
When Hinckley’s family relationships are considered, his actual level of
competence becomes incredibly difficult to assess. While all members of his family have
rallied to his defense, each to a greater or lesser extent, his life since the age of 20 or so
has been strongly guided, enhanced, and supported by the interventions of his family.
Although presumably well-intended, the Hinckley family has ultimately validated John's
mental deficiencies and have done anything - and everything - possible to aid in his
!171
continuing defense; however, Hinckley himself has been so insulated and overprotected
that, when factoring in his narcissistic personality traits, he has conceded to an entitled
sense of endless support from his family members.
Experts from St. Elizabeths continue to maintain "psychological testing results
indicate that Petitioner has made progress but continues to be very defensive and
represses a lot of his feelings” (United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2012).
Can a logical inference exist that members of the Hinckley family could be attuned to the
defenses postured by John or to the repression of feelings that he exhibits to clinicians?
While the family has sought to better educate themselves about his specific mental health
issues, they are not clinicians and are not credentialed to make diagnoses or inferences
about his behavior; nor would it be appropriate for them to do so. In any case, his mother
is in a position of supervision during his Williamsburg visits to do exactly that. This
poses clear elements of conflict. As his tireless advocate and steadfast supporter, Jo Ann
Hinckley has always thought the best of her son, even when such thoughts were not
warranted. When Dr. Patterson interviewed Mrs. Hinckley in the spring of 2015, she
overemphasized the lack of problems in her relationship with her son, without offering
the slightest criticism. According to her most recent interview with Dr. Raymond
Patterson (2015)
We then focused discussion of how things have been from her
perspective for the past two years, and she responded that "has just
been fine" and "we get along just fine and we really haven't had any
problems and I don't have a complaint." (p. 44)
It is not possible to expect Jo Ann Hinckley to recognize periods of potential
!172
decompensation, as she has consistently appeared to fake good when discussing her son.
While his siblings, Scott and Diane, seem a bit more pragmatic in their
assessments of their brother, the shared family goal is based on a representation of John
in as favorable a way as possible, with the hopes of his imminent full convalescent leave
from St. Elizabeths Hospital. The Cynthia Bruce incident in which Hinckley accused his
family of being racist was brought to light as a result of hospital staff. This family
situation may have not become part of the public record if the Hinckley family was
entrusted to bring it to the court as subject for consideration. In very recent proceedings,
prosecutors insisted, based on records and direct testimony from the St. Elizabeths' staff,
that Hinckley, “continues to be deceptive regarding his relationships and interest in
women,” and that
Hinckley's narcissism, one of his core psychiatric diagnoses and a risk factor for
his future dangerousness to himself or others, also remains intact. The signs of
this illness continue despite years of therapy and medication. Hinckley's behavior
towards CB (Cynthia Bruce) and his behavior toward his family with regard to
CB's visits to his hometown are merely two recent examples of this disorder.
(United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 2012)
John Hinckley is a fortunate person in many ways. Few individuals that become
enmeshed as deeply as he has in the judicial system enjoy the level of family
commitment, both financial and personal, that he has, particularly over a period of time
spanning more than 30 years. It is this heightened level of support, however, that might
also serve to his ultimate detriment.
In a very recent photographic piece in The Daily Mail (O'Donnell, 2011), several
photographs of John Hinckley on his first day enjoying his newly expanded freedoms in
!173
Williamsburg to 17 days a month were featured. Most depicted Mr. Hinckley out for a
walk in his mother’s neighborhood, grasping a diet soda in his hand. On that same
afternoon and in the same news piece, another photograph was featured - that of a nearly
90-year-old Jo Ann Hinckley, spryly exiting her local supermarket with a trolley full of
what appeared to be a week’s groceries. This juxtaposition of their tasks - a middle-aged
adult son out for a leisurely walk while his much older mother did the grocery shopping -
seemed to depict the entitled and overly reliant adult son taking advantage of his mother’s
need to nurture.
Conclusion. Prior to the assassination attempt, John Hinckley was under the care
of Dr. John Hopper with whom he had 22 sessions of therapy. While in therapy, Hinckley
was plotting a sensational act to gain fame and was all the while purchasing weapons and
constructing the Jodie Foster narrative. Dr. Hopper did not know about any of this
because John Hinckley did not tell him. In the present, as in the past, John Hinckley does
not tend to be candid with his treatment providers. Secrecy and deceit have accompanied
Hinckley since his solitary endeavors began in late high school. This is a pattern that has
continued, and occasionally (but only occasionally) has been detected in the clinical and
court records. Because of his outward presentation of functionality, clinicians are not
necessarily looking for evidence of deceptive behavior, and when presented with it, tend
to downplay its significance, as was the case with the falsified itineraries detected by the
Secret Service. Having been coddled by an emotionally-needy mother since early
childhood who is now, at nearly 90-years old, charged with supervising his behavior and
detecting decompensation (including deceptive behavior), Hinckley is unlikely to be
!174
reported for any infractions by his family once he is on permanent convalescent leave.
The relationships that Hinckley has with his mother and had with his father have
defined him as a person, more than any other influences. While Hinckley’s on-going
idolization of The Beatles and John Lennon is certainly the primary influence for his
desire for fame, it is the more direct influence of his family dynamic that, perhaps,
aggravated his lesser personality traits. The troubled, Oedipal saga Hinckley engaged in
with his parents went on far beyond the developmentally appropriate years of early
childhood. In the present, the impact is considerable - it is his mother who serves as his
responsible party. His over reliance on her might lead to a difficult situation if she
becomes unavailable to him, and could potentially lead to decompensation. While
Hinckley is, by all accounts, clinically stable at this time, in an atmosphere of limited
support, both clinically and from family, this may not permanently remain the case.
Research Question Three
How does the case of John W. Hinckley, Jr., compare to that of other assassins/
would-be assassins (particularly to the cases of Arthur Bremer, attempted assassin of
Governor George Wallace, and Mark David Chapman, assassin of John Lennon) who
committed crimes with similar aspirations of notoriety, but who were found guilty of their
crimes; and how might he have been influenced by Bremer and Chapman?
Arthur Bremer. Arthur Bremer currently lives anonymously in Maryland, and
according to his parole officer, works on a farm. He has never spoken publicly about his
crimes, nor has he committed any further infractions. From all outward appearances, Mr.
Bremer has successfully segued from model prisoner to model reintegrated citizen over
!175
the past eight years since his release, exhibiting no signs of further criminality. Since Mr.
Bremer was confined as an inmate versus a psychiatric patient, he was able to refuse all
psychiatric evaluation and treatment throughout his years of confinement.
Bremer and Hinckley had very different backgrounds, but it is important to note
that many similarities did exist in their developmental years that made them very similar.
According to Clarke (1990), “The key to the personalities of both Arthur Bremer and
John Hinckley is that they grew up with great anxieties about being loved and
wanted” (p. 85). Both, because of mothers who were too enmeshed in their lives,
experienced great difficulties, as they became young men.
Like Hinckley, Bremer never dated in high school. It wasn’t that
neither one wanted to- they did. It was that neither of these pleasant-
looking but painfully shy and inhibited boys had learned to socialize
with women on a mature level. Women, except for their mothers, were
strangers. As they reached adulthood, both Bremer and Hinckley had
the social and sexual sophistication of thirteen year-olds. (Clarke,
1990, pp. 86-87)
As adult men, post-crimes, however, Bremer and Hinckley have gone in different
directions. Bremer is not known to have had any jailhouse penpals, while Hinckley was
known to have corresponded with Ted Bundy and continues to relish in sexual contact
with psychiatrically-compromised women. What is important to note about Mr. Bremer
as opposed to Mr. Hinckley, however, is that at no time during his incarceration did Mr.
Bremer attempt to solicit media attention to his case. While at no time legally prohibited
from doing so, Mr. Bremer sought the opposite of Mr. Hinckley - he wished to remain
anonymous and denied media requests for contact. As opposed to aggressing the media
for attention as Mr. Hinckley did during his early years of commitment, Mr. Bremer
!176
largely kept to himself, wishing only for an eventual release (which he received in 2007)
and a simple life, below the quintessential radar. While Bremer has successfully achieved
this humble goal, John Hinckley aspires to, at the very least, achieve some measure of
recognition from the recording and publication of songs from the band he is assembling
in concert with the timing of his permanent convalescent leave. Although the early lives
of these two men bear some resemblance, the future may reflect dramatically different
outcomes.
While Bremer’s diaries were indeed the inspiration for the film, Taxi Driver, the
impact of actual influence from that film and its main characters is discussed more
specifically in the Research Question Five section of this chapter
Mark David Chapman. “Chapman searched desperately for a secure identity.
Unable to find it in the world around him, he internalized his search, creating a world of
his own” (Unger, 1981, p. 30).
The actions of Mark David Chapman may have been the primary catalyst that
caused John Hinckley to actually take action and shoot on March 30, 1981. Despite the
fact that Hinckley deeply loved John Lennon and went to New York to participate in a
vigil that followed his death, two things may have occurred, activating Hinckley’s need to
act on his murderous fantasies:
1. Hinckley witnessed, first hand, the impact Lennon’s death had on throngs of
people. He witnessed this live in New York City, and televised in the days and
weeks that followed. From witnessing this impact, he could internalize the reality
!177
of the scope of coverage committing such a high profile act of violence could
invoke.
2. When John Lennon died, Hinckley nihilistically mused, “Did I die?”
Dr. Carpenter believed that “Lennon’s death compounded the chaos in John’s
brain. As he had plunked on his guitar in solitude over the years he had been Lennon.
Now in characteristic schizophrenic fashion, he also became Lennon’s assailant” (United
States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1982). While this thought process does not
necessarily indicate schizophrenic tendencies, it suggests that perhaps through an over
identification with Lennon, his hero, for many years, that once Lennon was dead, those
suicidal ideas could switch to those of assailant and become homicidal. According to
James and Gilliland (2012), “There is a thin line between suicide and homicide as an
expressive act” (p. 215). While John Hinckley aborted his suicide at the Dakota as a love
offering to Jodie Foster, he elected for another ‘expressive act’ in his assassination
attempt - one that he knew would bring him considerably more widespread fame and
recognition. It was not unusual that Hinckley had transferred his aggressive urges
outward, as “West (1965) found that fifteen of his homicidal offenders had had
preoccupations with suicide the week before their offense, in some it being an option only
hours before. In a sense, the aggression seems to have been displaced from inside to
outside” (as cited in Mahendra, 2012, p. 186).
In the case of John Hinckley, aggression may have periodically been directed
inward; however, there was a consistent thread of desire for recognition - from the people
involved in his life, from music publishers he was too frightened to approach, or from
!178
Jodie Foster (who was no more real to him than his fictional girlfriend, Lynn Collins).
While in his lowest moments following the murder of John Lennon, Hinckley may well
have felt suicidal; his pervasive narcissism (likely) compelled him to turn his aggression
outward.
Moore and Fromme. Unlike Sarah Jane Moore and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme,
John Hinckley was not found guilty and sent to prison. Much like Arthur Bremer, both
women have had their freedom restored already and have never at any point been barred
from speaking publicly. Both were successful inmates and both have (thus far) been
successful outside of prison. Also, like Bremer, both have largely avoided the media
(with an interview Sarah Jane Moore granted to the TODAY Show and an interview
granted to CNN in 2015 being the exception).
While Moore and Fromme, like Hinckley, did attempt to assassinate a sitting
president, the motives were vastly different - Hinckley sought fame; Moore and Fromme
sought a political platform. Despite the fact that Hinckley flippantly aligned himself with
gun control and compared himself to political dissident, Andrei Szacharov following his
involuntary commitment, he was in no way politically motivated when he made the
assassination attempt. While Sara Jane Moore may behaviorally exhibit some signs of
narcissism, she has never aggressively sought publicity with the same enthusiasm as
Hinckley did initially, though this may change with time. Hinckley, while sharing the
notoriety of being a failed assassin, has little in common with Fromme or Moore, except
perhaps a need for visibility through extreme means with a political target as a means to
an end.
!179
Research Question Four
How does the case of John Hinckley compare to those of other individuals found
not guilty by reason of insanity?
The case of John W. Hinckley, Jr., bears very little resemblance to any other case
of an individual found not guilty by reason of insanity and the main reason for this is the
case of Hinckley himself. Public outcry and backlash again the verdict in this case led to
the 1984 Insanity Defense Reform Act that changed the federal standard and those of
many states. According to Resnick (2007), “In reaction to the Hinckley verdict, 26
separate pieces of legislation were introduced in the U.S. Congress to eliminate or narrow
the insanity defense” (p. 155).
Most individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity have schizophrenia, and
rarely is murder or attempted murder the charge they are facing (Moriarty, 2001). Mr.
Hinckley has not progressed through the mental healthcare system in a way that is
consistent with the experiences of the majority of others, who on average, spend a mere
three years, versus his now 34 years in confinement (Green & Heilbrun, 2011, p. 216).
Former girlfriend, Leslie DeVeau, spent a mere four years under the hospitals supervision
after murdering her sleeping child. Following her commitment, her sanity was legally
and technically restored and she went on to work for the Washington, D.C., Office of
Accountability that oversees the very hospital in which she was a patient. The insanity
defense has become considerably more difficult to mount, and as Resnick (2007) states,
“Each insanity trial is a morality play in which the jury decides whether the defendant is
culpable for his acts” (p. 154).
!180
Arguably, the most famous insanity defense mounted in recent years in the United
States was the 2006, trial of Andrea Yates. The case of John Hinckley stands in stark
contrast to that of Ms. Yates. A history of severe postpartum depressions, four
hospitalizations, two known suicide attempts, and a lack of ability to engage in even the
most basic aspects of self-care (such as bathing or eating) defined the trajectory of
Andrea Yates in the two years that preceded the deaths of her children. She was known
to be severely ill by family members and treating clinicians. Hinckley had received no
diagnosis prior to the commission of his offenses and had been seeing a clinician who did
not formally diagnose him with any disorder. He took Valium occasionally, and received
a combination of talk and biofeedback therapy.
Like Hinckley, however, Andrea Yates was as guarded as she was capable of
being with her treating clinicians. While she could not conceal the presentation of her
severe depression, she did conceal her delusions and hallucinations from her treatment
team, deluded to believing that if she expressed a thought of harming her children, that
Satan would force that to happen. Unlike Hinckley, Yates was not being deliberately
deceitful in an attempt to mislead anyone; rather, she was embroiled in magical thinking
that made her believe she was forced to keep her silence, lest her speech harm her
children.
Ms. Yates is currently doing well on medication and is a model patient who
complies with all requests made of her. The sad irony of Ms. Yates’ full recovery from
the throws of depression and psychosis is that “even if Mrs. Yates is eventually
discharged from a psychiatric hospital on conditional release, she will always carry the
!181
emotional burden of having killed her five children” (Resnick, 2007, p. 155). Yates,
unlike Hinckley, is not narcissistic. Since responding positively to medication, her sense
of empathy and concern for others is in tact, and she is unable to deny the gravity of her
crimes.
Despite the fact that John Hinckley was responsible for the serious injuries of four
individuals, ultimately resulting in the death of one, the emotional burden of his actions is
expressed to clinicians in occasional references; yet, the majority of his focus is on his
own freedom and ability to express himself. While a determination of not guilty by
reason of insanity was made in both cases (despite the unfortunate circumstances
surrounding Ms. Yates having initially being found guilty), the gravity of Ms. Yates
mental condition when contrasted with Mr. Hinckley’s at the time of his offense is
tremendous. While Mr. Hinckley may gain his freedom, Ms. Yates will never truly be
free of the ramifications of her loss.
Research Question Five
The ultimate question, however, is: Who is John Warnock Hinckley, Jr. - past,
present, and future - and how can this portrait be determined?
In order to answer this question, there are several specific areas of the life of
Hinckley that must be reviewed. For organizational purposes, they are displayed under
the subheadings of family relationships, self-identity, the fifth Beatle, and Taxi Driver.
Family relationships. Essentially, John Hinckley has remained bound to his
mother in the fashion of an overly-reliant teenager, despite the fact that he is a man who
is now 60-years-old, for whom the ability prove to the court that he has the ability to live
!182
and function independently is of extreme importance. While Mrs. Hinckley remains
intent on ensuring John’s compliance with the court and St. Elizabeths, and on ensuring
his personal comfort during his visits to her home, the question of whether her
interventions and care serve as empowering or enabling factors is of great concern to the
court, and is key in considering the relational dynamics of this mother-son duo.
This behavior stems from a long-standing pattern of dysfunction that has existed
between mother and son since his adolescence. While Mrs. Hinckley has remained
continually sympathetic to her youngest child who she regarded as more sensitive than
his siblings, this behavior on her part created a chasm between her and her husband and
reinforced the negative relationship that festered and grew for many years between John
Hinckley and his father. According to Clarke (1990), “Mother, father and son careened
from one place to another in a desperate Oedipal contest of wills and emotions that they
didn’t seem to understand, a contest that they would all ultimately lose” (p. 35).
And lose, they did. When Hinckley left Evergreen to participate in the non-
existent writers program at Yale,
After three unrewarding days of courtship, he called his mother to say he didn’t
like the workshop (no explanation), New Haven (dirty, industrial, and too
expensive), or the students (sloppy and unfriendly). He wanted to come home.
Disgusted, his father didn’t want to be there if he did. The next day Jack left for a
World Vision meeting in California. (p. 39)
In their book Breaking Points (J. Hinckley et al., 1985), both parents independently
accounted their dismay with John’s back and forth struggle with school and various other
(mostly non-existent) pursuits. While mother Jo Ann remained sympathetic over the 7-
year period following high school that this took place, even she was aware of the toll that
!183
his constant and never-ending need took on her marriage. John Hinckley grew
increasingly frustrated with his father’s lack of understanding. Hinckley hoped to please
his father as his siblings, Scott and Dianne, seemed to have had no problem doing. Yet, he
continually manipulated his father for financial support and his father had grown tired of
the on-going drama. To Jack Hinckley, John had done nothing for him to be proud of.
He perceived his son as having low follow-through, and no direction. Jack Hinckley’s
disdain was palpable to his son, and eventually John’s negative feelings toward his father
began to evolve. Clarke (1990) recognized that
nothing John ever did pleased his father- at least, he never heard his
father say he was pleased. As a child, John resented him; as he grew
older that resentment turned to hatred. That situation- the absence of a
positive male figure in his life- was a major reason why, at the age of
twenty-five, John Hinckley was still trying to decide who he was and,
in the process, get back at the father he could never please. (p. 16)
Jack Hinckley had become increasingly more active in World Vision Ministry
mission trips in part because he wanted to do good in the world, but also in large part
because he could not stand to be around his son. According to Jack Hinckley himself,
I couldn’t honestly have said which was the stronger drive, to help
people in drought-stricken Africa, or to get away from Evergreen.
John acted as thought my presence was an affliction to be endured and
Jo Ann gave me no support at all. (J. Hinckley et al., 1985, p. 142)
This particular trip home was pivotal to young John psychologically, however.
He later expressed that although his mother had permitted him to come home and spend a
night in the house, she asked him to stay in a hotel the second night of his visit because
his father was expected home and she did not wish to deal with the conflict that would
inevitably arise. John was hurt by her actions. Clarke (1990) expressed that this was the
!184
transaction that aroused Hinckley’s need to take action.
It was not only hurt; beneath it there was anger-probably a decade’s
accumulation of anger. John Hinckley had decided he was going to get
even. But how? He couldn’t bring himself to strike out at his parents
directly, certainly not at his mother, and if he couldn’t hurt his father
without hurting her. But he could embarrass them. He could make
them regret the way they had treated him all these years. Guilt, that
was it. He could make them feel responsible for some terrible thing he
did. He had contemplated suicide for months, probably years, the
thoughts expressed in morbid, self-deprecating poems he had written.
Instead he chose assassination- after considering mass murder- like
many of the people he had read about after his exile to Lubbock. It was
an extraordinary act that no one, especially Jodie Foster and his
parents, could ignore. (p. 40)
From this point on, Hinckley began to ruminate ideas of murder, which he had
long read about and studied, under the perceived degradation of his father’s presence.
His father did return from that particular World Vision meeting and,
By the third week of October John was back in Evergreen, sitting in
the stony silence of the living room. Jack, as usual, was in his huge
brown easy chair staring angrily at the logs in the fire. His son sat
across the room, head down like a disobedient puppy. (Clarke, 1990, p.
42)
The tension between father and son was at its zenith by this time, a mere 5 1/2
months before the assassination attempt would take place. The love combined with anger
that existed in the overly-enmeshed relationship between mother and son had driven the
father to a point of nearly complete rejection of his son. This point in time was of
unusual significant because, for the first time Hinckley had ever perceived, mother did
not come to his rescue.
Interestingly, it is from this point onward that the Jodie Foster fascination took an
even stronger hold. Hinckley wrote more about her and alleges to have thought about her
!185
progressively more. Lest it be forgotten that his mother was still called Jodie by friends
and family members at this point. In order to cope with the feelings of rejection he had
experienced from his mother for the first time clearly, Hinckley quickly transferred his
love object from one Jodie (mother) to the next (Foster). Of further interest is the tone
that Hinckley’s initial letters to Ms. Foster took. According to a female classmate from
high school,
‘'I don't recall him dating at all, really,'' said Beverly Bishop McBeath, who, like
Mr. Hinckley, went from Highland High to Texas Tech in 1973. ''I can't even
imagine him saying the things that were in that (Jodie Foster) letter. It's almost
like he was non-sexual." (Clines, 1981)
His early letters were of a romantic nature. They contained no latent sexual
references or suggestive language. They were letters that if mother were to read them
would be found innocuous. In his initial stages of creating a Jodie Foster-as-love-object
narrative, Hinckley wrote of a love that was pure - much like the type of love a young
adolescent would imagine receiving a mother’s approval.
From early childhood, John Hinckley had become the “Chosen Child” (Love &
Robinson, 1990), that is, “a child chosen by a parent to be a primary source of emotional
support” (p. 5). Jo Ann Hinckley had unwittingly morphed the close relationship she
shared with her young son into something less healthy. Though the tension between her
and her late husband was evident in the years leading to the assassination attempt, Mrs.
Hinckley has, in effect, continued this paradigm throughout John’s adulthood. While her
contact with him was somewhat restricted throughout 2006, she has since that time been
able to indulge her emotionally incestuous urges. As Jack Hinckley died in 2008, and
!186
John Hinckley’s visits home have increased since that time, Jo Ann Hinckley has
essentially become what Love and Robinson (1990) considered the
romanticizing Parent, a parent of the opposite sex who turns to a child of the
opposite sex for the intimacy and companionship one would normally expect to
find in a love relationship. In essence, the child becomes a surrogate spouse. (p. 7)
Although Mr. Hinckley has been allowed on-going 17 day visits to his mother’s
home, concern has been expressed that he has done little in terms of job-seeking in the
Hampton Roads, Virginia, area, and that he has done little to form ties with anyone
outside of his care providers and his mother (Montalbano, 2011, p. 7). The fact that his
narcissistic personality disorder remains clinically present might explain this dichotomy.
While his mother has worked tirelessly for optimum therapeutic conditions for him and
taken on his mantle of responsibility as her own, Mr. Hinckley's behavior suggests that
such behavior on her part is appropriate, and that he need not trouble himself with regards
to conforming to measures of compliance as long as she is willing and able to do it for
him. The irony of the current state of family relations is that John Hinckley has,
essentially, become husband to mother, and she has become wife to him. Despite the
girlfriends to whom Hinckley has formed attachments, albeit seemingly superficial ones,
it is possible that his transference from mother to Jodie Foster has come full circle, and
once again mother is his love object. This relational dynamic perhaps further impacted
the relationship of Hinckley to his siblings. According to Love and Robinson, (1990)
This jealousy of siblings can also contribute to the Chosen Child’s feelings
of rejection. When the Chosen Child is getting extra attention, siblings feel
deeply resentful. Typically, to equalize the relationships, they take out
their anger on the Chosen Child, because it’s far easier to trade punches
with a brother or sister than to take on a parent. (p. 45)
!187
This sibling aggression is not evident with sister, Dianne, as much as it is with
brother, Scott. While the family has collectively cleaved to a plan to present John in the
most positive possible light to ensure his extended freedoms, Scott has been the least
resistant in presenting his brother honestly to the courts and to the evaluation team. This
could be simply because Scott is a forthright individual, but the impact of the years of
favoritism, or at the very least, extra attention John has received could be a potentially
influential factor. Love and Robinson (1990) further expressed that
Few parents who are guilty of emotional incest realize they are
harming their children. In fact, many of them see themselves as
devoted, self-sacrificing parents acting in their child’s best interest.
What they don’t realize is that in addition to giving their child love and
attention, they are using the relationship with the child to satisfy their
own unmet needs. Unconsciously, they’re allowing their natural love
of their children to swell until it fills the empty spaces in their lives. (p.
100)
When Hinckley reflected on the assassination attempt in terms of its relationship
to his family, he expressed,
I seem to have a need to hurt those people I love the most. This is true
in relation to my family and to Jodie Foster. I love them so much but I
have this compulsion to destroy them. On March 30, 1981, I was
asking my family to take me back and I was asking Jodie Foster to
hold me in her heart. My assassination attempt was an act of love. I’m
sorry love has to be so painful. (Caplan, 1987, pp. 129-130)
John Hinckley has indeed had a powerful need to hurt the people he purports to
love the most. None have felt the impact of this urge more than his family members,
particularly his mother and father. When John Hinckley pulled the trigger in 1981, he
did, in fact, ‘ask’ his family to take him back, and they did, in epic form. Ever since that
!188
moment, his parents have worked tirelessly to make sure he has had the best of
everything - legal defense, increased time away from St. Elizabeths, supervision, and
comfort. His mother, in particular, has quite literally devoted her life to his seeming
improvement. The question that arises from their very unique situation, however, is:
How has this situation served her?
This relational dynamic is curious, to say the least. After many years of
involuntary commitment with eventual full convalescent leave a real possibility, the fact
that Mr. Hinckley continues in his reliance on his mother for matters as mundane as food
shopping and preparation when the court has clearly expressed a need for him to become
more independent is perplexing, and yet, not entirely surprising. While Mrs. Hinckley
clearly enjoys caring for her son, her son does not seem to have a similar desire to care
for his aging mother; yet, both seem quite comfortable in their respective stations. As an
adolescent, John did not separate from his parents as would be developmentally
appropriate.
The normal pattern for a child growing up is to find, usually during
adolescence, that friends are more interesting and fun to be with than
parents. Parents become less important to his emotional needs. It is a
critical period of development, according to psychologists, during which
the child not only establishes his sexual identity, both physically and
emotionally, but also redefines his relationship to authority. The child does
this, in large part, but asserting his independence from his parents and
assuming greater responsibility for his own welfare. The process by which
the child ‘cuts the apron strings,’ or distances himself from the parents, is
formalized when he becomes self-supporting and moves out of the house.
Parents may encourage and facilitate the process, but, as a rule, it is the
child- and not they- who makes this decision. If the process is reversed, it
can be traumatic, conveying a sense of banishment and arousing feelings
of ultimate rejection in the child. So it was with John Hinckley. (Clarke,
1990, p. 26)
!189
Mrs. Hinckley was ‘asked,’ according to John’s statement, to “take him back,”
and she most certainly has. While Jack Hinckley, now deceased, was also party to this
desire, it is Mrs. Hinckley who continues to adhere to the role of parent to a very aged,
adult child. Why does John continue to require her to play this role, and perhaps more
importantly, why does she continue to do it?
When psychoanalytic theory is applied, it is clear that John Hinckley is a classic
example of unresolved Oedipal conflict. The record of his behavior during the years
Freud defined as the phallic stage (approximately ages three to six) of psychosexual
development clearly indicated an over-attachment to his mother. As Freud believed that
boys were naturally inclined to become enamored with their mothers and wished to be rid
of their fathers as competitors for mother’s attention, Hinckley did not overcome his
ambivalent feelings toward his father and relinquish his libidinal attachment to his mother
in the time frame that would indicate healthy development. In The Interpretation of
Dreams, Freud (1899) proposed, “it is the fate of all of us, perhaps, to direct our first
sexual impulse towards our mother and our first hatred and our first murderous wish
against our father” (p. 296).
While Hinckley purported to love his father, going so far as to homage him in
song at the time of his death, a history of unresolved conflict existed between the two.
While Jack Hinckley was always pleased to see any clinical advances made by John, and
went so far as to become a mental health advocate, the reality that had existed from
John’s youngest experiences could not be ignored. In that reality, Jack found his son to
!190
be a young man overly attached to his mother, with whom he had nothing meaningful in
common (unlike with his other son, Scott, who became vice president of his oil company,
and who was also an adult friend and frequent golfing and social companion), and who he
never truly understood. While Jack publicly expressed great remorse for setting young
John out on his own when, in hindsight, he viewed him as ill and unready, he never,
publicly or as part of the court record, expressed an increased knowledge of young John.
This, when reconciled with John never expressing an increased knowledge of his father,
supports the idea that there was a substantial emotional and intellectual chasm that
existed, and never ceased to exist, between father and son.
John, at times, hated Jack, and his father grew contemptuous of the son he could
not understand despite his best efforts. Although Jack denied favoring certain children
over others, it was apparent to all who knew him.
it was hard to believe that Jack hadn’t taken more pride in Scott and
Dianne, that he hadn’t acknowledged them more than he had John.
After all, his new company had been named Vanderbilt Energy
because of his pride in Scott’s graduation from that fine old Southern
institution. And everyone who knew the Hinckleys soon learned that
Dianne had been a head cheerleader, vice-president of the mixed choir,
a Homecoming Queen nominee, and a member of the National Honor
Society at Southern Methodist- they knew because Jack told them.
(Clarke, 1990, pp. 60-61)
John Hinckley grew up feeling profoundly rejected by his father, and became an
adult male initially fueled by anger in reaction. While that anger seemed to dissipate as
the years went on, he remained a man overly attached to his mother with an un-focused,
often predatory, and misguided concept of manhood and masculinity.
!191
Self-Identity. During the trial, Dr. Carpenter submitted a line from a poem John
Hinckley wrote following Lennon’s death as evidence, in which he stated, “inside this
mind of mine I commit first page murder” (United States of America v. John W.
Hinckley, Jr., 1982). Although Carpenter used this line in support of the delusional
thinking that he believed represented the psychotic state Hinckley was in at the time he
attempted to assassinate the president, the line reinforces the fame-seeking aspect of
Hinckley’s persona. Hinckley, unarguably, did attempt to commit ‘first page murder’ -
his failed assassination attempt placed him on the front page of every paper in the United
States, and many internationally.
Hinckley was quoted from a poem he wrote early in his time at St. Elizabeths
Mental Hospital as expressing, "I can't begin to be happy...I plot revenge in the dark...I
was desperate in some bold way to get attention" (Clarke, 2006).
Clearly, Hinckley boldly sought attention, and indeed, received it, both nationally
and internationally. Following the assassination attempt, Hinckley’s former writings
began to emerge, as did new writings - more new writings from a poet/singer/songwriter/
painter/photographer than will ever likely been viewed publicly.
In the initial time period following his involuntary commitment to St. Elizabeths,
Hinckley, via a mail correspondence with Penthouse magazine, was flippant, arrogant,
and insistent in stating, “I’m a poet first, and a would-be assassin last” (Sonnenschein,
1983). More recently, he is quoted in court documents as stating,
I don't have a microphone in my hand. I don't have the video camera. So no one
can hear my music. No one can see my art. I have these other aspects of my life
!192
that no one knows about. I'm an artist. I'm a musician. Nobody knows that. They
just see me as the guy who tried to kill Reagan. (Montalbano, 2011, p. 10)
Hinckley made that remark to his art therapist, Mr. Hyde, during an exchange in
which they discussed the mortified reaction of staff and patients to a television segment
about the Jared Loughner shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, which took the life of two other
individuals, one of whom was a young child. While Hinckley himself was allegedly
mortified by the events as most Americans were, he wondered aloud to Mr. Hyde if
people viewed him as they viewed Jared Loughner, to which Hyde responded, “Yes they
do” (Montalbano, 2011, p. 10). Hinckley then made the previous statement in defense of
his character, believing that if only he were permitted to publicly display his work in
some significant way, that people would understand that he is an artist and musician, and
would consider his attempted-assassin status as secondary or lesser.
His strong sense of self-identification as a musician and artist is interesting.
While it is well known that he self-defines as a musician, painter, and poet, it is also
known that he is loathsome of being forced to justify these positions contextually, despite
the fact that for the past 34 years he has been an involuntary patient in a psychiatric
hospital as a direct result of his attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan and his wounding of
him and three other people.
According to one of the most comprehensive recent psychological risk
assessments conducted on John Hinckley at the request of the court, Paul Montalbano,
Ph.D., of St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital expressed that overall, Mr. Hinckley has indeed
successfully navigated the Washington, D.C., mental hospital he has called home for the
!193
past 30-plus years (Montalbano, 2011, p. 3). When admitted, he was initially diagnosed
with narcissistic personality disorder and major depressive disorder with psychotic
features. Mr. Hinckley also presented as suicidal almost immediately, and while placed
on heightened suicide watch, attempted to take his own life on two known and observed
occasions. Currently, his clinicians state that his depression and psychotic symptoms are
in complete remission, and that his narcissistic personality disorder has improved, though
he still presents with some degree of narcissistic personality disorder. Suicidal ideation is
perceived as entirely absent (Montalbano, 2011, p. 3).
!194
The fifth Beatle. It is of consideration that John Hinckley, while an involuntary
patient at St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital, has prolifically created works of art; yet, has
done little to nothing in terms of creating an audience. According to Patterson (2015), he
has only recently made a single musician friend, though a local music scene exists in the
Southeastern portion of Virginia where he spends extended periods. He has only recently
formed two friendships with anyone outside of his family in the area, but has not created
an audience for himself. His media restrictions do not prohibit him from playing with
other musicians in a private home or rehearsal space, so long as no video or audio
recording takes place. While he is under the supervision of his elderly mother during his
time in Virginia, a plethora of musical performances occur every day of the week, many
of which he could attend, but does not. While he does have a curfew he must honor,
there are many musical performances that occur during the daytime hours. Why does
Hinckley largely avoid watching and learning from the performances of others?
According to recent testimony from the staff at St. Elizabeths, John Hinckley
continues to present with an extremely strong sense of grandiosity, entitlement, and lack
of empathy; essential components of his on-going presentation of narcissistic personality
disorder. As such, the possibility exists that he does not present his work to others
outside of the safe and controlled environment of music therapy or lessons because he
likely believes that they could not fully appreciate the quality of his work. Also, by
avoiding the development of artistic alliances outside of the hospital or from a paid
instructor, Hinckley is able to avoid situations in which fellow artists offer each other
opinions or criticism. Through not attending performances of other musicians, he avoids
!195
a need to compare his skills with those of others and is thus able to remain in a pristine
state of artistic invincibility. There is suggestion that he is branching into work on a
small scale with other musicians in the most recent (Patterson, 2015) psychiatric
evaluation for the courts. He is able to avoid the normal day-to-day rejections most
musicians grow used to by seeking only the opinions of those in a official, paid capacity,
who are more interested in his desire to create art versus the marketable quality of his
songs or paintings. In this microcosmic world, he can remain invincible, just as he seems
to believe The Beatles and John Lennon to be. He is able to exist in a realm that is free of
critique in which he can essentially experience himself as the fifth Beatle.
As John Hinckley withdrew socially over a period of years beginning in mid-high
school, he replaced real-life friends and acquaintances with The Beatles, as he poured
over books about them and learned their songs on his guitar. As the years have gone by,
even during the years of Jodie Foster infatuation and through the present, John Hinckley’s
love of The Beatles has been abiding and constant. He continues to play their songs and
collect memorabilia to this day. John Lennon’s death marked the first profound tragedy
that would traumatize Hinckley. Just over three months later, he would attempt to
assassinate the president, and while his obsession with Ms. Foster was a factor, it was
possibly his narcissistic desire for fame, aggravated by Chapman’s gaining fame for
committing Lennon’s murder, that led him to pull the trigger on that fateful day in 1981.
The Beatles have essentially been John Hinckley’s constant and, often, only
companions since he was nine years old. Through establishing a self-identity as an artist
and musician in a vacuum, essentially free of criticism or comparison, Hinckley can align
!196
himself with his idols and exist in a fantasy world of his own creation, all the while
maintaining a grandiose sense of being.
Taxi Driver. When Taxi Driver was released in 1976, John Hinckley was 21-
years-old. The character, Iris, portrayed by Jodie Foster, was a child prostitute of 12-
years-old. One of the most shocking and troubling aspects of the Hinckley case is that
virtually nothing is written in the thousands of pages made available for public
consumption, including those that are transcribed from clinical records, that address the
specifically-disordered nature of this infatuation.
According to the DSM 5, and prior editions of the DSM, pedophilia is:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies,
sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or
children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty.
E. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or
children in Criterion A. (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013)
If John Hinckley was 21-years-old and believed that Jodie Foster was 12-years-
old at the time he first saw Taxi Driver, how can the pedophilic nature of Hinckley’s
obsession be overlooked? Granted, when he pursued Ms. Foster at Yale University, she
had reached the age of 18, but essentially, his infatuation was born out of a fixation based
on her younger self, even at that time. There is a note contained in the DSM criteria,
recognizing that it is appropriate for a clinician to acknowledge that a difference exists
!197
between a true pedophile and a person in their late adolescence in a continuing
relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old (APA, 2013). In this case, however, no “continuing
relationship” realistically existed, other than that which may (or may not) have existed in
the mind of Mr. Hinckley. Further, despite the fact that Mr. Hinckley was considered to
be immature by his parents, family, and psychologist, he was not in his late adolescence,
but in his early 20s when he first fixated on Ms. Foster. Further troubling is the fact that
Mr. Hinckley has disclosed to evaluative clinicians and his former girlfriend, Leslie
DeVeau, that he lost his virginity while in his mid-20s, while traveling back and forth to
the east coast in pursuit of Ms. Foster or political targets, to 12- and 13-year-old
prostitutes in New York City. He met and had sex with at least three young girls, and
while he offered to “help” them, none of them were interested. He did, however, engage
in intercourse and other sexual acts with them (Low et al., 1986; Montalbano, 2011;
Walsh, 1999). If John Hinckley believed on any level that he was Travis Bickle, how was
this possible? To be certain, Travis Bickle was able to cast one obsession to another - his
rejection by the character of Betsy made him want to gain notoriety by assassinating a
presidential candidate, and once he could not gain access and coincidentally met Iris, he
decided to “rescue” her instead. What is troubling is that Mr. Hinckley, in notes and
letters that are part of the public record, expresses his desire to “rescue” Ms. Foster. Yet,
Hinckley was happy to offer “rescue” and be refused by a number of child prostitutes,
while subsequently enjoying them as sexual objects. The fact that they were exploited
children evidently entered his thought process (as he did offer to “rescue” them), but he
himself perpetuated their exploitation. While Travis Bickle on his first meeting with Iris
!198
rejected her sexual advances, and on his second meeting with Iris, met her for breakfast
and advised her to go home to her family and date boys her own age and go to school
(Schrader & Scorcese, 1976), Hinckley may have advised the same, but engaged in sex
acts, up to and including intercourse with female children of the same profession. What
would he have done if one had said, “Yes, take me home to my family?” Just as Iris in
the film rejects Travis Bickle’s attempts at help (though she expresses her appreciation),
Mr. Hinckley seemed poised to expect that same rejection, and perhaps used that as
justification for the satisfaction of his own depraved desires. Perhaps his adaptation of
elements of Travis Bickle’s persona legitimized his socially unacceptable attraction as a
21-year-old man with a sexual attraction to a 12-year-old child. Perhaps picking and
choosing the elements of Travis Bickle he chose to emulate gave him the freedom to
indulge not only in his fantasies, but actions around his own inhibited sexuality, with
everything else attached Travis Bickle (the clothes, the drink, the desire for notoriety via
assassination, etc.) in a way that allowed him an “out” of sorts. If he was engaging in
certain acts because he thought he was Travis Bickle, those acts were no longer the
expressed acts of John Hinckley, no matter how he bastardized the intrinsic intent and
message of the character.
While John Hinckley’s defense team of attorneys and psychiatric experts was
successfully able to use his outward adopted expression of the character, Travis Bickle, as
evidence that he had lost touch with his sense of self and had subsequently taken on the
identity of a fictional character to compensate, citing his clothing and beverage choice,
and the fact that he once signed into a hotel as “J. Travis,” as evidence, when examining
!199
the trajectory of influence surrounding Taxi Driver, with its roots so deeply enmeshed in
the story of Arthur Bremer, the development of the Travis Bickle character, the role of
Betsy as idealized female, Jodie Foster as child sexualized object, and so on, how deeply
can John Hinckley’s obsession and the subsequent influence of these characters be
perceived? Did the film enliven and perhaps even, to some extent, excuse his attitudes
and life choices, or did it suggest them to an enfeebled mind? Some of both?
While it is clear that John Hinckley was influenced by the film, Taxi Driver, the
extent of this influence remains very unclear. While Hinckley certainly felt a relational
affinity towards the main character, Travis Bickle, the extent of that affinity remains
suspect, largely in part because of Hinckley’s own actions and behaviors. Travis Bickle
would not have frequented under-aged prostitutes with the intention of having sexual
relations. Despite wearing the clothing and drinking the same alcoholic beverages as
Travis Bickle, and even posturing himself in the same gun-to-the head posture in a
photograph as the character performed in the last epic shoot-out sequence of the film,
how did John Hinckley truly relate to the character of Travis Bickle?
Travis Bickle was a Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam conflict and there are
many elements of his character that suggest he might have suffered from posttraumatic
stress disorder, given his hypervigilant nature, ,His intense and prolonged distress, his
persistent and exaggerated negative thoughts/worldview, his feelings of alienation, his
feelings of irritability, and his persistent insomnia (APA, 2013). John Hinckley may have
experienced some of these symptoms as a result of the depression he experiences, but his
record is clear: He had no prior military service experience, he experienced no known
!200
childhood trauma, and he showed no pre- or post-symptoms of posttraumatic stress
disorder.
One very interesting element of Arthur Bremer and Travis Bickle that is absent
with John Hinckley - both Bremer and the fictional Bickle altered their appearance so
dramatically that they changed their hairstyle. Bremer shaved his head to a close-cropped
hairstyle before his assassination attempt, and Bickle shaved his hair into a mohawk in
preparation for his final standoff. Mr. Hinckley maintained the hairstyle of his
adolescence through the assassination attempt of President Reagan. John Hinckley would
not take that definitive step - one that was so significant to the Travis Bickle character
and the real-life Arthur Bremer upon which Bickle was based - and shave his head in
some form. The reason for this lack of a transformation is perhaps easily understood; as
attorney Goldman argued for the defense during trial, “In fact, it could be argued that
John Hinckley knew precisely who he was; the problem was that that image was
something he couldn’t accept and desperately wanted to change” (Clarke, 1990, p. 52).
The problem with this need to change was the conflict it created. Hinckley may want to
change on some level, but like anyone with severe narcissistic personality disorder, he is
also resistant to do so based on his own feelings of grandiosity and superiority. While
adopting particular traits of another might be permissible to one with narcissistic
personality disorder, going to the extreme and actually believing oneself to be another
would cause narcissistic injury, and therefore, would probably not happen.
As Hinckley has continuously presented with a sense of grandiosity, a symptom
of his narcissistic personality disorder, it is highly unlikely that he would have been able
!201
to diminish his own identity in order to adopt that of someone else. While some
individuals who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder experience an inflated sense
of self to a lesser degree, an individual with a severe form of the disorder like Hinckley
experiences a more extreme form of grandiosity and conceit that is not likely to be
abandoned. Rather, aspects of another admired individual are adopted as one’s own and
what ego-integrity, however misguided, remains in tact.
Conclusion. In the very latest psychiatric evaluation of John Hinckley, he talked
about wanting to start a band and indicated that he had applied for jobs at Subway and
Starbucks, but it was very difficult to fill out the applications with Secret Service agents
allegedly looming behind him. Dr. Raymond Patterson, who conducted a series of
interviews in addition to reviewing Hinckley’s clinical record, recalled a bit of his
conversation with Mr. Hinckley:
Mr. Hinckley continued that he has no intention of doing a tour with a
band but if he is a member of a band that wants to go to a studio and
record he would want to do that because he is part of the band. He
added that if the same band said they were going to go on tour or be on
"Saturday Night Live," then he would have to "exit the
band.” (Patterson, 2015, p. 65)
John W. Hinckley, Jr., turned 60-years-old in May 2015. He claims he does not
wish to be famous, adding, “that he has had 34 years of being "infamous, so that's
enough” (Patterson, 2015, p. 64). According to the most recent report,
His Narcissistic Personality Disorder continues to be present, and
although it appears to be somewhat lessened, it continues to influence
his judgment, decision-making, interpersonal relationships, and
behavior. (Patterson, 2015, p. 67)
Yet, on the eve of gaining his freedom, essentially, John Hinckley has decided to start a
!202
band, and his record would suggest that this is not coincidental. In the mid-1980s, he
sued the federal government, stating that his first amendment right to free speech was
being violated as a result of the media plan. Because the plan was considered part of his
treatment, the hospital and the federal court have been able to maintain it, and it remains
in place. However, once Hinckley is released on full convalescent leave, the hospital and
the government will be more vulnerable to another legal challenge. If Hinckley is
successful, he may be able to enjoy the celebrity he likely craves. Ultimately, John
Hinckley was never obsessed with Jodie Foster, Travis Bickle, Iris, The Beatles, or
anyone else. John Hinckley was obsessed with John Hinckley and making sure his needs
were met on whatever terms that satisfied him and his true obsession - fame at any cost.
The very fact that a 60-year-old individual who has been confined to a psychiatric
hospital for over 30 years is in a position to consider starting a band, and essentially,
starting a new life outside of confinement, is strikingly unique when compared to other,
similar cases. Many who have been confined to the very same psychiatric hospital have
not enjoyed the life of relative luxury that Mr. Hinckley has been afforded during his time
visiting Williamsburg, nor have they received the same level of privilege while in
involuntary confinement. Hinckley’s entire existence from the time he shot Ronald
Reagan and three others has been based on a solitary factor: His having been found not
guilty by reason of insanity.
While the insanity defense exists to provide humane treatment to offenders who
are genuinely psychologically compromised and who cannot on any meaningful level
understand the wrongfulness of their actions or resist their impulsive actions, Mr.
!203
Hinckley was not insane when the shootings occurred. The jury was not wrong in their
findings, per se. They were, however, misguided by an outstanding and expensive team
of legal and psychiatric experts who were successful in creating just enough doubt about
Hinckley’s legal sanity to result in the insanity verdict. While public outcry around the
verdict was so pronounced that new legislation was passed, namely the 1984 Insanity
Defense Reform Act, the new legislation had no retrospective impact on the Hinckley
case. Despite the fact that the likelihood is high that the verdict was wrong, it was legal,
binding, and determined in good faith. According to its terms, Hinckley is currently at an
appropriate stage in his treatment process to be considered for release, having been a
(mostly) compliant patient. This reality does not imply that Hinckley does not continue
to present with the disorder that most likely caused him to attempt to kill the president.
Additionally, while Hinckley may be well enough to be released and may score low on
violence risk assessments, the conclusion that Hinckley will never again be dangerous is
unwarranted. Hinckley has a history of predatory behavior, albeit not of a specifically,
murderously-violent nature. The fact that he has not been reintegrated more aggressively
into everyday life and that he has been insulated from the media is cause for concern. If
he is not successful in reintegrating into the community, he could decompensate and
potentially become dangerous. The concern of an increase in dangerousness is also of
concern in the instance that his mother becomes unavailable. Further concern exists if
Hinckley receives permanent convalescent leave and mounts further legal action that
permits him to express his first amendment rights to expression. These concerns are all
significant, but not significant enough to keep him in involuntary confinement. The
!204
future is impossible to predict, even when the past is better understood.
John Hinckley will be released into permanent convalescent leave status as soon
as the federal judge overseeing the case is satisfied with the terms of the hospital’s release
plan. He currently continues to enjoy 17 (mostly) incident-free days each month at his
mother’s home. What follows will be entirely determined by John Hinckley.
Recommendations for Further Research
Examination of the case of John Hinckley invites further research in three primary
areas:
1. Continued research of the progress Hinckley makes (or fails to make) as a result
of his trajectory towards full convalescent leave and within the decided terms of
that leave once it begins, would be useful in adding to the body of longitudinal
study conducted on him thus far. The impact of such a major change for him and
all that it entails will be useful to study, as the results could indicate the long term
ramifications of his years of inpatient treatment, for better or worse. As unique
and dissimilar his case is to others mentioned in this dissertation, comparison with
outcomes of those others would be of considerable academic interest.
2. Research of the Hinckley case involved a significant amount of examination of
the treatment of other patients at St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital. This research led
to the recognition that in a setting in which all patients are entitled to an equal
level of care, treatment, and protection; all patients have not received equal care.
Mr. Hinckley has received treatment, attention, protection, and advocacy in ways
that are different from others at St. Elizabeths, and while conjecture can be made
!205
as to the reasons, solid research and analysis of the factors at hand is warranted.
All patients in American mental hospitals, those sanctioned by the federal gov-
ernment specifically, deserve ethical and appropriate care, and perhaps increased
improvement of the conditions at St. Elizabeths could eventuate in that, if only in
terms of slightly improved care for a few.
3. While patient care at St. Eliizabeths in general merits further study, no aspect of
that care deserves more thorough and immediate research than the condition of
the women that have been involved with Mr. Hinckley at the hospital. As of April
2015, the woman known as Ms. CB in the court records (known to be Cynthia
Bruce) is again hospitalized while believing Mr. Hinckley will remain her
boyfriend, his clinicians have worked with him on a strategy to integrate full-time
into the Williamsburg community that does not involve her. It is not known if her
treatment team has implemented any such plan for her. Concern for her well-be-
ing following his discharge is unknown. Concern exists as a result of this research
as to the ultimate fate of the woman known in the court records as Ms. DB.
While it is known that Mr. Hinckley was romantically involved with her and then
her cousin; what is not known are the circumstances surrounding her death a few
months later. While death by natural causes is certainly a real possibility, her rela-
tionship with Mr. Hinckley, mired by his involvement with her cousin, lends itself
to a level of concern, or at the very least, of interest. Having learned, too, that Mr.
Hinckley was involved sexually with a woman of compromised communication
ability further suggests that additional research around the lives of the women in-
!206
volved with him might be of importance to the future of their well-being. The
future of other mentally-compromised women at St. Elizabeths with regard to en-
suring their health and safety could also be significant to further research that
could serve to elucidate hospital policies (or the lack thereof) in place to protect
them.
!207
References
Aarons, L. F. (1975, September 28). The emergence of Sara Jane Moore. The Washington
Post. Retrieved from http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject
%20Index%20Files/F%20Disk/FBI/FBI%20Moore%20Sarah%20Jane/Item
%2002.pdf
Abrams, H. L. (1992). The president has been shot: Confusion, disability, and the 25th
amendment in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Alexander, K. (2014, May 4). St. Elizabeths patient walks off D.C. grounds without
authorization. The Washington Times. Retrieved from https://
www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/st-elizabeths-patient-walks-off-dc-
grounds-without-authorization/2014/05/04/7af856ca-
d3bc-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html
American Experience. (2000). Portrait of an assassin: Arthur Bremer. George Wallace:
Settin’ the woods on fire. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/
sfeature/assasin.html
American Experience. (2005). Timeline: Guerrilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst.
Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/guerrilla/timeline/timeline2.html
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Associated Press. (1981, May 15). Tape by Hinckley is said to reveal obsession with
slaying of Lennon. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
1981/05/15/us/tape-by-hinckley-is-said-to-reveal-obsession-with-slaying-of-
lennon.html
Associated Press. (1982, June 13). Psychiatrist says Hinckley had a sense of reality. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/13/us/
psychiatrist-says-hinckley-had-a-sense-of-reality.html
Bowie, D., & Eno, B. (1977). Heroes. On Heroes [CD]. Berlin: RCA.
Brady, J. (2011, March 26). Jim Brady: 30 years later (S. Simon, Interviewer) [Audio
file]. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2011/03/26/134878570/Jim-Brady-30-
Years-Later
Brady, S. (2002). A good fight. New York, NY: Public affairs.
!208
Brakel, S. J., & Brooks, A. D. (2001). Law and psychiatry in the criminal justice system.
Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co., Inc.
Bremer, A. (1973). An assassin’s diary. New York, NY: Harper’s Magazine Press.
Caplan, L. (1984). The insanity defense and trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. Brooklyn, NY:
Laurel.
Capps, D. (2013). John W. Hinckley, Jr.: A case of narcissistic personality disorder.
Pastoral Psychology, 62, 247–269. doi: 10.1007/s11089-012-0443-2q
Carpenter, W. T. (2011, January 21). The insanity defense has little to do with science.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/
2011/01/20/who-qualifies-for-the-insanity-defense/the-insanity-defense-has-little-
to-do-with-science
Clarke, J. W. (1990). On being mad or merely angry: John W. Hinckley, Jr., and other
dangerous people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Clarke, J. W. (2006). Defining danger: American assassins and the new domestic
terrorists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Clines, F. X. (1981, April 5). Agents tracing Hinckley’s path find a shift to violent
emotion. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
1981/04/05/us/agents-tracing-hinckley-s-path-find-a-shift-to-violent-
emotion.html?pagewanted=5
CNN. (2013, July 22). John Hinckley’s Jodie Foster obsession [Video file]. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SorGDbtLq5M
Cross v. Harris, 135 U.S. App. D.C. 259, 264, 418 F.2d 1095, 1100 (1969).
Dean, E. (1997, July 25). Stalking Hinckley. Washington City Paper. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/13128/stalking-hinckley
DeMarco, G. (2009, May 28). Attempted Ford assassin: “I think it was wrong.” TODAY
NEWS. Retrieved from http://www.today.com/id/30978026/ns/today-
today_news/t/attempted-ford-assassin-i-think-it-was-wrong/#.VndsTzZH3Vo
Denno, D. W. (2003). Who is Andrea Yates? A short story about insanity. Duke Journal
of Gender Law and Policy, 10(1), 1-60. Retrieved from http://
scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=djglp
!209
Dietz, P. (2002, February 25). Forensic psychiatric evaluation of Mrs. Andrea Yates.
Retrieved from http://www.parkdietzassociates.com/files/
Report_of_Dr._Park_Dietz_re._Andrea_Yates__2002.pdf
Ewing, C. P., & McCann, J. T. (2006). Minds on trial: Great cases in law and
psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Freud, S. (1899). The interpretation of dreams. New York, NY: Avon Books.
Fromme, L. (2005). Personal correspondence to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Graham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London, England, United Kingdom:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Green, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2011). Wrightman's psychology and the legal system.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Greider, W. (1972, May 16). Wallace is shot, legs paralyzed; Suspect seized at Laurel
rally. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-srv/politics/daily/sept98/wallace051672.htm
Grove, L. (1985, May 15). The Hinckleys, living with the pain: Shock, soul searching and
a personal crusade against mental illness. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1985/05/15/the-hinkleys-
living-with-the-pain/d880cc04-1f2f-44bd-804a-3594d23f946f/
Henry, N., & Brown, C. (1981, April 5). An aimless road to a place in history; Aimless
wanderings of a ‘sick boy’ out of the bubble in Dallas; Turned into a long,
troubled journey and cross-country search; Hinckley’s odyssey long and
troubled. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://
www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/04/05/an-aimless-road-to-a-
place-in-history/16f9a8aa-8c72-4d34-8d01-508bec44bbe4/
Hermann, P. (2014, February 14). Man found dead under snow in Southeast had walked
away from psychiatric hospital. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://
www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/man-found-dead-under-snow-in-
southeast-had-walked-away-from-psychiatric-hospital/
2014/02/14/46ea2334-9598-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html
Hinckley, J., Hinckley, J. A., & Sherrill, E. (1985). Breaking points. Grand Rapids, MI:
Chosen Books.
!210
Hinckley, J.W. (1981a). Amen [Poem, private journal writing].
Hinckley, J. W. (1981b). The painful evolution [Poem, private journal writing].
Hinckley, J. W. (1982, November). Letter to KZEW. Oh no its devo-obsesso. Retrieved
from http://devo-obsesso.com/html/paper-itempages/documents/john-hinckley-
radio-letter.html
Hinckley, J. W. (1987). A world of my own [Private journal entry].
Hinckley, J. W. (n.d.) Pretend [Poem, private journal writing].
Hinckley, J. W., Casale, G., & Mothersbaugh, M. (1982). I desire. On Oh no! It’s DEVO!
[CD]. United States: Warner Bros.
Hlavaty, C. (2015, April 24). 13 years later, the Andrea Yates drownings still haunt. The
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/
bayarea/crime-courts/article/Andrea-Yates-Rusty-Yates-5567726.php
Jaffe, H. (2011, September 23). Free John Hinckley. The Washingtonian, 47(1).
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/free-john-
hinckley/
James, R., & Gilliland, B. (2012). Crisis intervention strategies. Boston, MA: Cengage
Learning.
Jones, J. (1992, November 17). Let me take you down: Inside the mind of Mark David
Chapman, the man who killed John Lennon. New York, NY: Villard.
Judd, O. (2009, April). Brothers interview of Geri Speiler, author of taking aim at the
president. Retrieved from http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/
static.home/page/spielerinterview
Kiernan, L. A. (1982, May 12). Hinckley's brother, sister tell of growing up in separate
worlds. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
archive/politics/1982/05/12/hinckleys-brother-sister-tell-of-growing-up-in-
seperate-worlds/f8c4f12c-cf99-4ae3-b6b3-e8b4603c2393/
Kleinfield, N. R., Buettner, R., Chen, D. W., & Stewart, N. (2015, October 3). Mass
murderers fit profile, as do many others who don’t kill. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/mass-murderers-fit-
profile-as-do-many-others-who-dont-kill.html?_r=0
!211
LaRosa, P. (2009, August 14). Exclusive: My private letters from Squeaky Fromme.
CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/exclusive-my-
private-letters-from-squeaky-fromme/
Laskow, S. (2015, June 3). A 45 year-old mom and a Manson girl both tried to kill Gerald
Ford. Atlas Obscura. Retrieved from http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/
female-assassins-sara-jane-moore-and-lynette-fromme-gerald-ford
Lennox, T. (2012, May 15). Where is Arthur Bremer? Alabama News Extra [Television
broadcast]. Montgomery, AL: WAKA CBS 8 News.
Lewis, W. F. (1990). Power, knowledge, and insanity: The trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr.
In R. Hariman (Ed.), Popular trials: Rhetoric, mass media, and the law (pp.
114-132). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Linder, D. (2009). John W. Hinckley, Jr. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/
projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleytrial.html
Love, P., & Robinson, J. (1990). The emotional incest syndrome: What to do when a
parent’s love rules your life. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Low, P., Jeffries, J. C., & Bonnie, R. J. (1986). The insanity trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr.
Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. (2009). 1981- John Hinckley brings infamy to
Lubbock. Lubbock centennial: The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal takes a
look at the city’s first 100 years. Retrieved from http://
www.lubbockcentennial.com/Section/1959_1983/hinckley.shtml
Mackenzie, M. A. (2007). Courting the media: Public relations for the accused and the
accuser. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Mahendra, B. (2012). Depression: The disorder and its associations. New York, NY:
Springer Science & Business Media.
Mansfield, S. (1982, May 16). Mother kills child: Sorrow shatters a neighborhood. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/
lifestyle/1982/05/16/mother-kills-child-sorrow-shatters-a-neighborhood/
ce32acc8-72e7-49a2-bf7e-0e4bf4f74d20/
Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Addison.
May, R. (1958). The origins of the existential movement in psychology. In R. May, E.
!212
Angel, & H. Ellenberger (Eds.), Existence (p. 27). New York, NY: Basic Books.
McElhatton, J. (2014, November 11). Man locked up 40 years in D.C. mental hospital
for $20 necklace theft breaks silence. The Washington Times. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/11/franklin-frye-languishes-
in-dc-psych-ward-40-years/?page=all
Melanson, P. H., & Stevens, P. F. (2002). The secret service: The hidden history of an
enigmatic agency. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Montalbano, P. (2011, November 28). Psychological risk assessment update. In United
States of America v. John w. Hinckley, Jr. Criminal case no. 81-306(PLF).
Moriarty, J. C. (2001). Mental illness, crime, and the culture of punishment. The role of
mental illness in criminal trials: The insanity defense volume II. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Morse, D. (2007, November 7). Wallace’s shooter, reticent, nears release. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801804.html?hpid=sec-nation
Myers, D. G. (2010). Psychology (9th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Nelsen Funeral Home. (2008, January 30). Obituary for John W. Hinckley, Sr. Retrieved
from http://www.nelsenfuneralhome.com
The New York Times. (1982, August 10). Excerpts from psychiatric evaluation of
Hinckley by the mental hospital. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://
www.nytimes.com/1982/08/10/us/excerpts-from-psychiatric-evaluation-of-
hinckley-by-the-mental-hospital.html?pagewanted=all
Nuckols, B. (2007, August 23). Wallace shooter to be released. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/08/23/AR2007082300792_pf.html
O'Donnell, N. (2011, October 3). Releasing a madman: Hospital takes legal steps to
release Reagan's would-be assassin to mom. The Daily. Retrieved from http://
www.thedaily.com/page/2011/10/03/100311-news-hinckley/
O’Malley, S. (2004). Are you there alone? The unspeakable crime of Andrea Yates. New
York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
!213
Patterson, R. F. (2015, April 8). Independent Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of John W.
Hinckley, Jr. Letter to Ms. Colleen Kennedy, Esq., Assistant United States
Attorney. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/
documents/2093461/hinckley552.pdf
Pekkanen, J. (2014, August 5). From the archives: The saving of President Ronald
Reagan: A minute-by-minute, inside-the-hospital account of what happened to
President Reagan after he was shot: the critical decisions that saved his life, the
human drama, the heroes, the entire untold story. The Washingtonian. Retrieved
from http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/from-the-archives-the-
saving-of-the-president/
Peppard, A. (2014, May 27). The Ticket’s Mike Rhyner recalls that spooky letter from
would-be assassin John Hinckley. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from
http://popcultureblog.dallasnews.com/2014/05/the-tickets-mike-rhyner-recalls-
that-letter-from-would-be-assassin-john-hinckley.html/
Resnick, P. (2007). The Andrea Yates case: Insanity on trial. Cleveland State Law Review,
55(2),147-156. Retrieved from http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=clevstlrev
Richissin, T. (1998, September 15). Wallace shooter hints a motive: In letter last year,
Bremer assailed racism, governor renounced. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-09-15/news/1998258112_1_bremer-parole-
commission-wallace
Riechmann, D. (2001, March 30). 20 years after Reagan shooting, victims’ lives are
scattered. Lubbock avalanche-journal. Retrieved from http://lubbockonline.com/
stories/033001/upd_075-8654.shtml#.VepKysZH2b8
Roberts, J. (2007, August 23). Man who shot George Wallace to be freed. CBS News.
Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-who-shot-george-wallace-to-
be-freed-23-08-2007/
Rolls, G. (2015). Classic case studies in psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schrader, P. (Writer), & Scorsese, M. (Director). (1976). Taxi Driver [Motion picture].
United States: Columbia Pictures.
Sipchen, B. (1997, December 3). How a life can go so wrong. Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/03/news/ls-59954
!214
Skipp, C. (2007, November 8). Wallace gunman Arthur Bremer walks free. Newsweek.
Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/wallace-gunman-arthur-bremer-walks-
free-96463
Sonnenschein, A. (1983, March). Interview of John W. Hinckley, Jr. Penthouse.
Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/51388040/Hinckley-Interview
Spieler, G. (2005, September). Don’t blame it on Danville: The suburban days of a
doctor’s wife who tried to kill a U.S. president. Diablo magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.diablomag.com/September-2005/Dont-Blame-It-on-Danville/
Spieler, G. (2009). Taking aim at the president: The remarkable story of the woman who
shot at Gerald Ford. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan
Stanton, S., & Walsh, D. (2014, April 23). Judge releases audiotape of ‘Squeaky’
Fromme’s mental exam after Ford assassination attempt. The Sacramento Bee.
Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/history/
article2596754.html#storylink=cpy
Summers, S. (Producer), & Waldman, M. (Director). (2010). The day John Lennon died
[Motion picture]. United States: Finestripe Productions.
Torrey, E. F. (1974). The death of psychiatry. West Chester, PA: Chilton Book Company.
Unger, C. (1981, June 22). John Lennon’s killer: The nowhere man. The New York
Magazine, 14(25), 30-42.
United States Attorney’s Office. (2015, January 2). Press release. Retrieved from http://
www.justice.gov/usao/dc/news/2015/jan/15-001.html
United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr. (1982). Transcript. U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia..
United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr. (2003). Transcript. U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.
United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr. (2009). Transcript. U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.
United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr., 81 U.S. 306 (2012).
United States of America v. Lewis C. Esker II. 429 U.S. 960, 97 S.Ct. 384, 50 L.Ed.2d
327 (1976).
!215
United States Secret Service. (1981, May 4). Internal investigation on attempted
assassination of Ronald Regan report (CO-1-31833). Retrieved from http://
www.secretservice.gov/Reagan%20Assassination%20Attempt%20Interview
%20Reports.pdf
Walsh, E. (1999, April 5). A reporter at large: Strange love. The New Yorker, 75(6), 52.
Walters, B. (Producer). (1985, April 25). 20/20 [Television broadcast]. Los Angeles, CA:
American Broadcasting Company.
Walters, B. (Producer). (1992, December 4). 20/20 [Television broadcast]. Los Angeles,
CA: American Broadcasting Company.
Walters, B. (2009). Audition. New York, NY: Vintage.
West, S. (2007, February). An overview of filicide. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 4(2),
48-57. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2922347/pdf/PE_4_2_48.pdf
Wilber, D. Q. (2011). Rawhide down: The near assassination of Ronald Reagan. New
York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.
Yardley, W. (2011, November 20). White house shooting suspect’s path to
extremism. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/11/21/us/oscar-ortega-white-house-shooting-suspect-struggled-with-
mental-illness.html?_r=0
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
!216
Appendix A
SIRB Application
!
September 27, 2014
Ms. Felicia M. Flores
2312 Osprey Villa Court
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451
Re: SIRB Application for Proposed Research (14-F-FMFlores)
Dear Ms. Flores,
I have the reviewed the IRB Application for Exemption materials related to your proposed
dissertation research, and I am pleased to inform you that your protocol is cleared for
implementation. Please note that clearance of this research is effective for a one-year period only
from the date of this communication (i.e., clearance effective until September 27, 2015). If more
time is required, request an extension before the period expires. After that, renewal is required by
reapplication to the IRB.
Should you wish to make modifications that could conceivably have an impact on human
participants, you are required to submit those modifications to the Saybrook IRB for review. At the
completion of your study, please email SIRB a copy of your Abstract, as this needs to be included
in your official SIRB file. The Saybrook IRB will not evaluate your Abstract; however, it is a federal
requirement that we have a record of your project completion.
For your information, I have recorded your IRB clearance in your SMS file at the school,
to facilitate your future graduation clearance upon completion of your graduate program. If you
have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Best of success with your research.
Sincerely,
!
M. Willson Williams, Ph.D., Director of IRB
505.629.1492
WWilliams@Saybrook.edu
Skype: WillsonW
cc: Dr. Robert McAndrews, Research Supervisor; SIRB file
