Milwaukee, Wisconsin. February 14th, 1992.

Prosecuting attorney, Michael McCann, has finished his two-hour long closing argument for the case of Wisconsin vs. Jeffrey Dahmer. Arguing that Dahmer‘s murders were the result of “cold-blooded planning for sexual satisfaction,” McCann also called into question the credibility of defence experts, Dr. Berlin, Dr. Becker and Dr. Wahlstrom – none of whom, McCann reminded the jury, had ever testified in a murder trial before.

Dr. Berlin’s claim that Dahmer’s paraphilia meant he was out of control at the time of his killings was also dismissed by the prosecutor – as was Dr. Wahlstrom’s claim that Dahmer had been “psychotic.”

While McCann lauded the prosecution’s own acclaimed ace card, Dr. Park Dietz, and the thoroughness of the 18 hours Dietz had spent interviewing the defendant (especially compared to the defence experts), he reminded the jury of the value of some of the trial’s lay witnesses. “You have a tremendous berth of experience there,” McCann said of Dahmer’s former Chocolate Factory co-workers. “That’s a lot of time to be with a guy who’s claiming that he should not be held responsible because of a mental disease. That’s a lot of time to spend saying, ‘no, [we] didn’t see nothing like that.'”

As the burden of proving Dahmer’s insanity falls on the defence, the court now allows for the defence’s rebuttal. Effectively part two of his closing argument, rebuttal allows Boyle to directly contend some of the points made by McCann (in particular, the shots fired at the expertise of the defence experts) and make one final case for Dahmer’s sickness.

Below follows the entire transcript of Boyle’s rebuttal, as recorded in 1992 by Court TV. Some minor alterations and additions have been made for the sake of clarity and grammar, but other than that, everything that follows is in the words of Gerald Boyle unless otherwise stated. 

Last Word

Mr. McCann and I have agreed that I am allowed to make the following statement, with his approval, in order to correct perhaps a misstatement.

That after the S.S incident, Mr. Dahmer was sentenced to eight years in prison. It was stayed. He was placed on probation for a period of five years (the first year of which was to be served in the House of Correction under the Huber Law¹) and he did the period of time that has been agreed upon. And I think it’s necessary for me to correct that in case there’s a misperception as to the type of sentence that the judge imposed.

JUDGE GRAM: Mr. Boyle, whenever I use Huber Law in relation to a disposition like that, I am always corrected. It is work release.

GERALD BOYLE: Work release. Thanks, Judge.

It’s been many years since I have had the last word in a jury trial. Years ago – when I was in the DA’s office and served with our very fine district attorney – the district attorney always had the last word and it was a great advantage. It is not a great advantage in this case because of the gravity of the situation.

You know, Mr. McCann complimented me² and I am confident there is nothing that I can say that is, in any way, going to alter what you people feel the evidence is. My job is to assist you. Believe it or not, I don’t want you to forget these young men that died. The opposite’s true.

I stand here representing a man who’s admitted to those killings and pled guilty to them.

This is not a murder case. This is (at the time of the commission of the offenses) not if he was out of control, but whether or not – because of his mental illness – he was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

The world, the state, the nation is watching this courtroom because of the interest of this case. I think it remarkable that we live in a country where we can be here talking about these things. There are few times in my life when I take great pride in things that I do, but this is one of them because it separates us – as I said in my opening part – from any other country in the world.

I remember during the Gulf War how proud I was to be an American when everybody was so fearful of what was going to happen there – and [of] the Republican Guard and the vaunted Republican Guard and, you know, we heard all that propaganda… And that ended like *that*. And I can remember that American soldier welcoming the Republican Guard fellas out of their foxhole saying, “come on, fellas. It’s going to be okay. Nobody’s going to hurt you.” I had more pride in watching that because that’s what it is to be an American. And what it is to be an American, in this case, is the fact that I can stand before you – not trying to get somebody off of anything – but I can stand before you to find out whether or not these men died because of a maniac killer or whether they died because the guy was sick.

And that’s what justice is. I’m not trying to fool you. I couldn’t fool you if I talked for a thousand days. But rebuttal – really, the fairness of rebuttal – is to get up and say, “here’s what you said, Mr. McCann, and here’s where I’ve got to disagree with you.”

And it’s not like the opening part of the statement where I don’t need the notes. I [now] have to look at things and I don’t like doing that.

Dependence and Diagnoses

All I’ve been hearing about is how his guys are tougher than my guys. The guys on his block can beat up the guys on my block. It’s not true! It’s just not true. That’s not the way we play the game. Is there something about these forensic psychiatrists that makes them so wonderful that they know everything?

Let me ask you this:

Here’s a forensic psychiatrist who spends lots of time with Jeffrey Dahmer. Here’s what he said. He said: “I think the guy was mentally diseased because I think he was suffering from a paraphilia, not otherwise specified, which I call ‘necrophilia.’ I believe he had alcohol dependence [which was] mild. And on axis two³, I think he had a schizotypical personality disorder and a borderline personality disorder.”

And then I have another doctor – a forensic psychiatrist, great doctor – and he says: “This fella was suffering from a paraphilia, not otherwise specified. Frotteurism (that is brushing against people without their consent). Partialism (because with the dead bodies he did something with parts of the bodies). And necrophilia. And his alcohol[ism] was mild to moderate. He had an alcohol dependence, mild to moderate. And he also says, “and another thing he had, on the axis two, was he had schizotypical traits.”

That’s really different, isn’t it? The one doctor – the first one – said, “and I also think he had a psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified, because I think his doing the business with the eating and the temple and all of that, I think, put him in that category also.”

And you know who they were? They were the rookie and the Hall of Famer. They were Wahlstrom and Dietz. You know how much and how far they’re separated from each other? A hair. A hair.

Let me tell you something else:

This Dr. Wahlstrom… You know, I don’t think [that] in a court of law what we do is we bring in professional actors. Nobody’s done that in this case. In the court of law we bring in somebody to educate a jury. Dr. Wahlstrom has his personality, Dr. Dietz has his personality. When I talked to Dr. Wahlstrom, he looked at me; when Mr. McCann talked to Dr. Dietz, he looked at you. Nothing wrong with that, that’s the way he does it. He’s a forensic psychiatrist. His living (or part of it) is made by coming in and testifying. [It’s] inherent in what he does.

Wahlstrom’s new at it. He’s just starting into that. But you know what’s really interesting? Wahlstrom’s been out of school a year. One of the biggest events in the 20th century was the attempted assassination of the President of the United States of America. Dr. Dietz testified in that case. He led the team. He was the main man. He was three years out of his residency training. ‘81, he was hired. He had graduated out of his residency training in ’78. That’s three years. “How dare he do that!”

Fact of the matter is, you know what his opinion was in that case and you know whether it was accepted or rejected. But so what? I wouldn’t have criticised Dr. Dietz because he was only three years anymore than I’d criticise Dr. Wahlstrom because it was a year. And when you look at what both of them said in this case, they’re a hair apart. It’s just that one said, “I think all this temple business and this eating business and all this other business kind of puts this guy into a schizo deal.”

I’ve got to say that to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My other two doctors said, “I consider those things, but I didn’t go to the step of saying that I could show it to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty.”

And I am offended – literally offended – that only Dr. Dietz did the complete job. Where has it been stated, in this record, that my doctors did not look at Exorcist III and Return of the Jedi⁴? I never asked the question because I didn’t think it was all that big a deal and it wasn’t asked in cross-examination. But don’t be fooled that they didn’t [just] because the question wasn’t asked and answered. And because it was asked and answered with Dr. Dietz – who was sitting there with Mr. Dahmer and decided that’s one of the things he wants to do – doesn’t mean my doctors didn’t do their job.

And this business about [how] I asked him about his alcohol? You know, I asked him about his alcohol because I couldn’t understand how a doctor – with all of the things that he has in his bag – could write down that it was mild to moderate. God, I would have thought he would have put down ‘raving alcoholic’ with all this drinking. And I wanted you to hear about [Dahmer’s] drinking history.

But it isn’t like, “well, he’s the only one who had it,” because I’m going to tell you something:

Dr. Becker read her entire report in here and I tell you something – she has got his drinking from the time he had his first drink when he was in high school, through the Army, thereafter, how many jobs he lost because of drinking, how much he drank [and] why he had to leave Bath, Ohio when he came back because he was drinking too much.

Dr. Dietz isn’t the only one that uncovered that.

The only reason we went into that alcohol thing at all was [because] I wanted to find out how much alcohol was responsible. And they all said that if he didn’t drink, we still would be standing here today. Alcohol was not the primary movement. It was something that he had, but they all say he was a necrophiliac or a paraphiliac. That simple.

So I have to say to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the following:

When I asked him if he agrees with the doctor – when it’s quoted in that same article – that alcohol plays a part in these necrophilia gags because a person with necrophilia finds that it lowers his inhibitions, he said, “yes, I agree with that.”

When I asked Dr. Dietz, “do you agree with Dr. Resnick (who is a national authority on necrophilia) that it is a very rarely and poorly understood phenomenon?” He said “yes.”

And when I asked [that] – although the most common motive for necrophilia was the possession of an unresisting, unrejected partner, and that necrophiles frequently express more than one motive for their acts – our data confirms Smith and Brown’s observation that “necrophilia may appear as a culmination of a pattern of multiple and increasing perverse practices rather than an isolated, abrupt deviation.” And he said, “yeah, I agree with that.”

And when I asked him if he agrees that the use of alcohol or drugs may be an important factor in helping some of the perpetrators overcome their inhibitions and actually perform their necrophiliacs, he says, “yeah I agree with that.” When I ask him that alcohol may be used in some cases to overcome inhibitions about killing, rather than about the necrophiliacs, he says, “yeah, I agree with that.” That’s what alcohol is in this case. We’d still be here if he’d never had a drink in his life.

Dr. Dietz said, “alcohol dependence (mild or moderate), necrophilia, frotteurism and partialism” – and then he had that spank-a-philia long word⁵ and his axis two is “antisocial, schizoid or schizotypical personality traits.”

Now how can someone claim that Dr. Wahlstrom is that far different than Dr. Dietz? They can’t. They can’t.

Man with a Mindset

I would like to continue on and tell you about this statement [from Dr. Dietz]:

“Certain mental disorders such as mental retardation, schizophrenia or dementia can have severe effects on functioning.”

All agree with that. There isn’t going to be a psychiatrist in the world that doesn’t agree with that.

“While others, such as sexual deviation, anxiety disorders and most personality disorders cannot.”

Footnote: “It is possible to concoct improbable factual situations in which these latter disorders” – meaning sexual disorders – “would form the basis of a legitimate insanity defence. I have never seen such a case and am unconvinced by the cases my psychiatric colleagues offer as examples.”

You had a man with a mindset. And he had that mindset since January of 1985. That’s the fact of the matter.

But the one thing I gotta say – and I think that the mystery was cleared up – he was always asked this question: Did you make an opinion as to whether or not he could appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct?

Did you make an appreciation of whether or not he could inform his conduct to the requirements of law?

“Yes, I did.” What was it? “He could, he could, he could.”

And I couldn’t understand. I’m not hearing this question: “What about his mental disease?”

Now, as you sit there – and as I stand here – I don’t know what his answer is except [that] when I pressed him he said, “that’s for the jury to decide.” Well, I gotta tell you, my people didn’t have any problems telling you what their opinion was. And I don’t know why I got that answer. You’re gonna have to make that judgment. It is your decision.

So then I pressed him further and I said, “was there such a mental impairment of the mind (whether transitory or enduring) that it affected the mental or emotional processes of Mr. Dahmer?” And he says, “well, you know, you got to look at the jury instruction. That’s up to the jury to decide.” And you know why? Because he couldn’t say paraphilia was a mental disease. This man had a mindset. It isn’t. And he doesn’t see anything else. So how could he say it was a mental disease? He couldn’t. But his colleague, Dr. Fosdal, said it was! And yet, the guys on his block can beat up the guys on my block. No, they can’t. No, they cannot. Because they’re split and mine weren’t. And he hired his and I hired mine.

And it sounds to me like what Mr. McCann was saying to you is that, at the very least, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, “don’t find that he couldn’t conform.”

Well, I don’t care about the first part, but if you don’t come up with the first part, you couldn’t answer the second part. But remember this, no matter what, he was out of control so he wasn’t able to conform. This isn’t a man who wasn’t out of control because he didn’t have a car.

I mean, that’s just not fair. Because I can tell you that I could have been in any one of those gay bars, with or without a car, and I wouldn’t have gotten asked. Because the first thing he wanted was his fantasy. And he wanted to keep his fantasy. So, to get his fantasy, certain things had to be in place. It had to be a male. It had to be around the right age, 15 to 25. That male had to have a certain physical structure. There could be no tell-tale signs that he took the male back.

And because the guy didn’t have a car, now he’s not a fellow out of control? All of a sudden he doesn’t have a mental disease because he’s making choices? Well, that’s just not the way it works. His choice was clear. He wanted somebody he could keep, kill and get away with killing so he could retain their body parts and do all his crazy sexual stuff.

So, because he didn’t ever alter from that, the doctors say, “ah-ha! This is a man totally in control.” That doesn’t make any sense. That isn’t dispositive of the question.

The question is: When he was doing what he’s doing, was he sick?

And if he was sick, was he still able to say, “enough, stop, it’s done with”? That’s the question.

And as I say, as credible as I can, I don’t know if I proved it to everyone but when he got that steamroller going he was out of control as he was going along with his thought processes [and] when he’s letting everybody in the world know that he’s bringing this boy back to his apartment (including policemen) and he keeps the parts afterwards and does three or four more killings.

Decision Making

We all are governed by rules of law and there’s things that we’re prohibited from saying. The judge told you at the beginning of this case what your function was going to be:

You have to make a decision on 15 counts. 15 counts. [On] whether or not, at the time of the taking of the life of each one of these young men, he was suffering from a mental disease – as [Judge Gram] will define it to you as you are entitled to find. If you say “no”, it’s all over. Job done, we all go home. And you go home and you accept your decision.

If you say “yes” to all 15, you will then have to say: Was he able to conform his conduct to the requirements of law?

If your answer is: “He was insane, but able to conform,” it’s all over. The judge will sentence him as provided by law. We will have failed.

If you say, “I think he was insane as to some and could conform as to some, but he was insane as to some and he could not conform as to some because of this mental disease” then the judge’s instructions will tell you what will happen to him because he is found insane. And as to those counts that you have found him not insane to (or insane of) he will be taken care of as provided by law.

He stands convicted of 15 counts of first-degree murder.

The rules do not allow me to say more, but your common sense can be utilised in trying to figure out what the total effect of what you do will be.

True Experts in Criminal Behaviour

Now, Dr. Frederick Berlin does not need me to stand up here and defend him. When I ask questions of experts, I let ‘em answer. It’s just me. That’s just the way I do it. Because I figure if they start playing games with me, I won’t beat them. And if they’re being straightforward, I ain’t gonna beat them. But if I’m doing my job – if I ask them the questions – then I feel you’re entitled to know the answers. And if they’re going to start playing a little fast-shuffle with me, I think I’m skilled enough to cross-examine them, to bring them out that they’re trying to sell you a package. That’s my method. Some people say that’s not a good method. I don’t care whether it’s good or bad, I’ve been doing it a lot of years and that’s just me. I can’t do much about that. But when Dr. Berlin was on the witness stand, the constraints put on him by the questioner was: “Answer the question! Answer the question!”

Now, I brought Dr. Berlin to you as a renowned expert in paraphilia. Renowned. At no time did Dr. Berlin say all necrophiliacs are mentally ill. Not one time did he say that. Not one time did he say all paraphilias are mentally ill. The opposite, he said. But he said this paraphilia was mentally ill. This paraphilia could not conform his conduct to the requirements of law. That’s what he said to you. He said nothing more than that. So, anyone who tries to paint him as this big liberal psychiatrist who stands alone on some mountain screaming out that all of these people are okay is not telling the facts, because that’s not what he said.

And his vitae supports that. If you look at this man – who has written 16 articles or appeared 16 times on paraphilia – not only as an invited participant on a White House conference [but] an invited participant to the United States Senate, an invited participant for the Governor of Maryland, an invited participant for the Maryland State Parole Board [and] an invited speaker for the Connecticut State Department of Corrections. This isn’t some wild-eyed liberal psychiatrist who’s trying to excuse conduct. The opposite’s true. This is a man who wants to help sick people. And my hat’s off to him.

Dr. Becker having never testified before… Do you realise, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that there is no doctor who has ever testified on a necrophilic serial killer who has killed 15 men and done what Jeffrey Dahmer has done? No one has ever done that. And I don’t care that forensic psychiatrists can come in and tell you what their opinion is. That doesn’t impress me. What impresses me is what their experience is. And all of these people were experienced and five of them – five out of seven – said “mental disease.” Five!

Now, is there anyone among us that says he doesn’t have a mental disease? I think, in my opinion, I think even Dr. Dietz is really kind of hedging on it. So he might be five and a half. Dr. Palermo said no, but he didn’t find [Dahmer to be a] necrophiliac – at least until he testified [and then] he added that. So, we got five. But we only got three that said he was so sick that he couldn’t conform. And I am not going to repeat my argument over and over again on what those arguments were for that, because I know you heard me.

This doctor said, “neither the legal system nor society needs forensic psychiatrists who believe that an ability to testify qualifies them to answer any question. They need true experts in criminal behaviour, mental disability, forensic child psychiatry or legal aspects of psychiatric practice.”⁶ That’s what Dr. Dietz said in an article that he wrote some years ago in 1987. He holds true to it today and I submit to you that every gentleman and lady that appeared here fits that bill because they are all experts in criminal behaviour and in mental disability.

Dr. Dietz graduated from his residency program at the Department of Psychiatry at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania – and with great pride he put down that he became a consultant to the United States Attorney’s Office in 1981 on the case of U.S. v. John Hinckley. So, a Wahlstrom discount. Do you think that Dr. Dietz should have been discounted in that case? I think not. My guess is that the jury heard what he had to say and they just didn’t accept what he had to say. That’s the way it’s played.

I think it’s clear… I’m getting towards the end of this. And this is the toughest part of the things that I do – having to look at all these notes. And the only reason I have to is because if I sit down and I never speak to you again – which I won’t be able to – then I can’t say, “I should have said that,” because that will hurt. So, I try and say everything I can. I have my associates write everything down.

Fairness and Willpower

I want to get into this how come we didn’t call anybody?

You know, that’s always an argument. You know: “You could have called somebody and somebody could have told us this.”

Well, this is a guy that didn’t have a relationship with anybody for longer than ten hours. I mean, I frankly couldn’t make opinions about three-quarters, five-sevenths, six-sevenths of the people I run across. I mean, the carpet man came in here! The guy who cleaned his carpet came in and he said he didn’t have hallucinations or delusions. What is that supposed to mean?

And you know, this Tracy Edwards thing seems to be, for some way or another, a craw in somebody’s throat – but I didn’t see the detective who took the statement from Tracy Edwards being called here to be asked the questions by the prosecutor. Did you ask him how Dahmer was acting in that bedroom and whether or not he was rocking and chanting? And what difference does it make?

None of my doctors said, “the reason I think he was crazy [was] because Tracy Edwards told me he was rocking and chanting.” Nobody relied their opinion on that, but I think it was important for you to know what it was like for that one human being – who was present and about to be killed – as to what [Dahmer] was acting like, so you could use that for whatever purpose you wanted.

And I keep on hearing about this apartment. I mean, there is a lot of locks on that door, but this apartment that’s supposed to be so clean doesn’t look to me like it’s too tidy. Seems to me [that in] the pictures they show [there] are a few cans of beer hanging around and paper strewn on the floor and a whole bunch of boxes hanging here.

And you know what? How good a killer this guy is – how in control he is – he leaves the shades open! Look at this. Those drapes wide open. The officer said that you can look in ‘em. Might be a little tough but, with the lights on [you can see in]. Here’s a guy that’s about to kill somebody who’s got it open.

I don’t buy it – that this man doesn’t show himself to be out of control [and] therefore he can conform. I don’t think that’s the test. I think the test is [that] all of these people were killed because of his paraphilic disorder and he couldn’t have stopped it on willpower alone. That simple.

I really wish I could just sit down and stop talking about all of this, but I can’t. But let me try something on you…

You know, I don’t know why we insult people who put themselves at risk by standing before the public and taking a position on something, like Dr. Berlin’s statement. You know, I don’t need to see, you know, “if a few trees are cut down, we’re still in a forest,” as being a demeaning statement. I just don’t think that’s fair.

I don’t think that’s any fairer for me to say (and I’m not saying it because I mean it, but I want to give you an example) that, if I was getting $300 an hour, I may want to watch videos with Mr. Dahmer, too. I don’t think that would be a very classy thing to say and I wouldn’t say it. And I said it only to illustrate a point. I illustrate the point that Dr. Berlin is an absolute expert and that he did not have to sit down and go through each and every item to arrive at his conclusion that, when you’re stricken with what [Dahmer] has, it doesn’t go away. And when I had enough facts to know that his condition was X, I didn’t have to sit down and write the biography of his life. And I don’t know why anybody would look askance at a person that made that answer. And if we were going to put on a dog and pony show, we could have had him sitting here for three days so that wouldn’t have been argued, but that would have been an insult to his intelligence, to force him to do that.

And besides that – as Dr. Wahlstrom said to you – he had the advantage (as did Dr. Wahlstrom, as did Dr. Becker) of all my work product. And I’m the only guy getting the story out of the defendant at the initial stages⁷ until he starts talking to the doctors. So how much time does he have to spend?

Dr. Palermo knew within four hours that he wasn’t insane. Dr. Berlin knew in three hours hours and 45 minutes [that] he was.

Which one do we accept?

Nobody in the World Like Him

Let me ask you a question:

Think of yourself with a 15 year-old son and that that son is the most precious thing in your life. Your entire life is around that son. And one day he comes home and he says, “Mum and Dad, I got to talk to you. I got a problem. I got a problem because something’s happening to me and I don’t know what to do about it.”

And you say, “what is it?” First thing, you know, everything shoots through our mind. He’s smoking grass. He’s drinking alcohol. He’s in trouble at school. He says, “no, it’s none of those things. It’s worse than that.”

And then you say, “well, he had an accident with the car. He’s had this. He’s had that.” And he said, “no, here’s what’s happening to me. I cannot get over these sexual urges that I’m having.” I say, “everybody has sexual urges, son. Don’t worry about it.”

He said, “Mum and Dad, I’m telling you how bad it is. I have these sexual urges that I’m walking around with, day and night, to want to make love to a dead body. I want to render somebody unconscious and have sex with them and I can’t get it out of my mind!”

Who are you going to call? Dr. Dietz? Dr. Fosdal? Dr. Friedman? Dr. Wahlstrom? Dr. Palermo? Dr. Becker? Or Dr. Berlin?

While you’re fighting to get the phone – one calling Baltimore and the other one calling Tucson – you’ll want those two because they know what’s wrong with your son.

And if they were to tell ya on the phone, “tell me about him-” – by the way, we’re hearing about all these things that Dr. Dietz did. I don’t remember him talking to Tracy Edwards. I don’t remember him talking to Mr. [Lionel] Dahmer, the father. I don’t remember hearing he talked to Mrs. Dahmer, the mother. I don’t know where, you know, he went to. He did some trips, he went to gay bars, he went to the apartment, but I don’t hear him doing this totally great job that I’m told that he did the best job.

If you remember what my doctor said, Dr. Wahlstrom talked to Tracy Edwards. Mr. and Mrs. Dahmer were talked to. We had reports. These guys all did the best possible job they thought they had to do to do their job in a courtroom – including Dr. Dietz.

But my point is, when you call the doctor on the phone and he says to you, “how many times a day is your son masturbating?” And you say, “two to three” and [the doctor asks], “what are his fantasies about?” And you say, “they’re about drugging someone or hitting them over the head and having intercourse of some sort or sex with them while they’re in an unconscious or dead state.” And then the doctor says, “well, how long has it been going on?” “Well, it’s been going on for quite a while, he tells us.” “And what else has he done?” “Well, he’s been messing around, getting roadkill off the streets and looking at the insides and getting turned on by that.” And [the doctor says], “well, wait a second. He’s okay. This isn’t really a mental disease or an illness. You know, willpower will be able to stop it.” You tell him to stop that business. You’re going to be on the phone with somebody else because you know you got a sicko on your hands.

And you see – with all due respect about our normal sex urges, whatever they may be – this is what we have with Jeffrey Dahmer. This is his sexual urges.

** Boyle holds up the ‘Jeffrey Dahmer as a Human Being’ chart again (as referenced in the first part of his closing argument) **

This is what he’s got: the fleshing, lobotomies, murders, graveyards, posed pictures, masturbations, drugging, cannibalism.

They’re not talking about the same person. There’s nobody in the world like him. Nobody.

Could he have stopped without [help], on his own? No. When did it get to the point, if at all?

When do we get to the point where we say, “justice demands that I say, at this point in time, he had a mental disease. There was something mentally wrong. He had an impairment of his mind that affected his mental and emotional processes”? Or do I say, “it never happened. He never had that impairment of the mind.” Of course he did. But he had it at some point in time. And then the next question is, if that’s true, when was he unable to stop? When did that impairment become so strong that it affected his capacity substantially to stop?

And I submit to you – and I owe this to ya – to say that I know I proved that to you as we were getting down the line with that one gentleman who ended up in the locker. Whose skull ended up in the locker⁸.

And I’ll tell you another time I proved it to you is in that Konerak situation and those four murders that took place within a month (or a month and a half) period.

And that would be a mixed verdict. You’re entitled to make that. But we – all of us – have to make sure that the day after we make the decision, whatever it is – just as I’ll make the decision tomorrow – when we look in the mirror, did we say: “We did our job and we did our oath”?

And see, people don’t believe this, [but] I don’t care about winning or losing. I just don’t care about it. It’s just not why I’m here. I am here because I refuse to run from what I’m supposed to be doing, regardless of anybody out in Wonderland that agrees or disagrees. Because someday I’m going to have to answer to the maker. And He said, amongst other things in The Good Book, “the least you do for one of these, my brother, and you do unto me.”⁹

If he’s evil, he deserves no consideration, he’s a maniacal killer. But if he’s sick, he should be found to have been sick when his sickness, under the law, was such that he lost it. And at some time, when he was given into these urges, he lost it.

Tragic and Pathetic

You know, when I’m criticised by the fact that I didn’t bring in a whole bevy of people who probably would have gave the dumbest lay opinion in the history of the world…

“Sir, how long did you know Jeffrey Dahmer?” “Well, I worked with him for seven years.” “Well, how many times you talked to him?” “Three times!” “Well, did he appear to be out of his mind?” “Yes, he did.”

I mean, come on, this guy is the most desolately lonely human being imaginable and the only time he could get his companionship is in the manner and form in which he tried it, creating all these tragedies that he created.

One thing I want you to think about… He’s a liar. I mean, it would be almost inconceivable to believe that a person who is a paraphilic who wants to have sex with dead bodies is going to be honest. It just speaks for itself.

The thing that causes me the greatest concern is this supposed control that he had. I submit to you that a person who has control is never ever going to take chances that they’re just going to be discovered and the craziest, craziest statement that he ever made was in the confession to the police (where incidentally, once again, I want to reiterate [that] he never tried to blame it on anybody other than himself). Where he said, “you know, after I brought Konerak back and I was able to convince those people, I figured I could get away with it forever.”

You know how crazy that is? He maintained 10 skulls. We know, as Mr. McCann has even said to you in argument, those folks could have been identified because of their teeth work. So he has the evidence of all of his crimes sitting in his apartment – which he cannot dispense with because of his craziness. He retains them and after Konerak he does three or four more.

Now, why wouldn’t this very controlled fella say, “aha, I got big problems today! I gotta start the partin’ of all this, or gettin’ it outta here, or bringin’ it over to my grandmother’s house. All I have to do is go down to the Grand Avenue Mall – like I did in the Tuomi case – get back here, get those skulls out of here in case anybody starts looking for that Asian boy. They’re going to find no evidence here.”

It would only take him a couple of days. He doesn’t do it at all and he still does four more.

And I’m supposed to say, on that hypothetical, [that] this is a guy in control of his environment?

This is a guy who’s so out of control in his environment, that the only thing he can do is to plan his next killing – because that’s all he ever thought about. And that’s tragic and that’s pathetic.

I am proud to be here and I thank you very much for your attention.

I don’t thank you to patronise you, I thank you because what you’re about to do is going to be ten times tougher than what I have done in here. Because all I was was a servant. You’re the decision maker. And whatever way it is, it’s your decision and I’ll respect it. And I pledge to you, I will respect it.

Thank you very much.

---

Sources:

• WI v. Dahmer: Defence Rebuttal on Court TV
• ‘Huber Information’ at Juneau.wi.gov
• The Forensic Psychiatrist of the Future by Dr. Park Dietz (1987)
• The Philidelphia Inquirer, Press of Atlantic City

Transcribing is time-consuming and can be a financial expense. If you find this transcript useful, please consider referencing me. I’d really appreciate it! 🙂

Footnotes:

1. Huber (commonly referred to as ‘work release’) is a privilege outlined in Wisconsin State Statute (303.08) which helps county jail inmates retain their jobs by allowing them to leave jail during “necessary and reasonable hours.” Including for work, community service, medical treatment, education, meetings with a probation officer or therapy ↩︎
2. “He is an honourable man. He is very persuasive,” McCann said of Boyle during his own closing argument. “He is effective and he is competent, as he argued earlier. Do not confuse him with the defendant. The defendant is on trial, not Mr. Boyle.” ↩︎
3. In the DSM-III-R, ‘Axis 2’ refers to personality and developmental disorders, as well as intellectual disabilities. Including (but not limited to): Borderline personality disorder, Antisocial personality disorder, Schizoid personality disorder and Paranoid personality disorder ↩︎
4. Dahmer routinely watched both films and claimed to have been drawn to their portrayals of evil and power – even going so far as to wear yellow contact lenses to emulate Return of the Jedi‘s Emperor Palpatine ↩︎
5. Dr. Dietz used the term ‘splanchnaphilia’ to refer to Dahmer’s sexual attraction to viscera. ‘Splancha’ being the Greek term for internal organs or entrials ↩︎
6. Quoted directly from Dr. Dietz’s article The Forensic Psychiatrists of the Future ↩︎
7. Though Boyle spearheaded Dahmer’s defence, most of Dahmer’s legal interviews were conducted with associate attorney, Wendy Patrickus ↩︎
8. Dahmer kept the mummifed skull of his victim, Anthony Sears, in his locker at the Ambrosia Chocolate Factory. “That’s how strong the compulsion was,” he later told Nancy Glass ↩︎
9.  Matthew 25:40 ↩︎