Lorimer Trial: Three Psychiatrists Heard For Defence

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31057, 12 May 1966, Page 3

Lorimer Trial: Three Psychiatrists Heard For Defence

Three psychiatrists—Dr. R. W. Medlicott. Dr. T. E. Hall, and Dr. J. R. E. Dobson—gave evidence in the Supreme Court yesterday that Nola Gertrude Lorimer had not been responsible for her actions when killing her 74-year-old mother, Reta Jane Coxhead, on December 1 last.

Lorimer, they said, was suffering from a psycho-neurotic personality’ disorder, stemming from her childhood, and therefore incapable of appreciating her act on December 1 and understanding that it was morally wrong.

Lorimer is standing trial before Mr Justice Macarthur on a charge of the murder of her mother at the latter’s Albany street home.

She is defended by Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr J. R. Milligan, and has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Medlicott, the last witness for the defence, giving evidence before another packed gallery yesterday afternoon, said that Lorimer, in repressing guilt complexes about her mother, had been sitting on an unrecognised volcano.

He will be cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. M. Roper) this morning. Much time yesterday was occupied by the evidence of Lester Ronald Cant, a close friend of Lorimer over the last two years, who said he thought their association would have culminated in marriage. His feeling for Lorimer, he said, were now stronger than ever. Reginald Warren Medlicott, medical superintendent of Ashburn Hall Private Psychiatric Hospital, Dunedin, said he was called into the case by Mr N. H. Buchanan, Lorimer's solicitor, and saw her in hospital on December 7 and on subsequent occasions while she was in the Dunedin prison. Assessment Asked for his psychiatric evaluation, he said: “I formed the opinion that the accused suffers from a severe psychoneurotic personality disorder, and at the time of committing the alleged crime her condition had deteriorated, so that she was so frankly mentally ill as to be incapable fully to appreciate what she was do-i ing. “As to her background, the accused, in spite of considerable drive and success, suffers from a chronic and severe personality disorder. From what I have heard in court, I would conclude as well that she suffers from psychomotor epilepsy. .. . Her history shows gross underlying insecurity as a child, associated with three things—quarreling parents, confused allegiance to parents, and break-up of the original home.” The witness expanded on these three latter factors. First, the family never went out together, and her mother regaled her with her father’s affairs with other women. “Induced Guilt’’ Second. Lorimer had adored her father, and loved her mother. Her mother, however, had induced a feeling of guilt over the former, so that she had broken off with her father when her parents parted.

Third, with the break-up of the home, Lorimer had been taken away from a private school and her friends to a large school where she was unhappy. “I believe that the accused maintained the role of a good mother, dutiful daughter, and successful business woman, but at the expense of two devices—denial, and release drinking,” the witness said. He explained “denial” as the mechanism by which the mind kept out unacceptable thoughts, feelings, and wishes —in Lorimer’s case, anger at, and resentment of. her mother, for the reasons explained. “People using such defences as denial are really sitting on an unrecognised volcano,” he said. “Although their feelings are denied consciousness. they lead to feelings of guilt which are quite irrational.”

The witness went on to give a detailed analysis of Lorimer’s psychiatric condition in the months before December I last. On that date, he said, she was confronted by an extreme series of events which precipitated her loss of mental control.

These events were:—Finding her mother dressed to go out when expecting to find her in bed: her mother's invasion of her privacy while using the bathroom; her mother turning on her over the remark about the dentures: her mother’s criticism of her daughter, Kay (to which the accused was intensely sensitive); and, finally, her mother unexpectedly slapping her face. As a result of Lorimer’s pushing her mother and her feeling of guilt when she fell to the floor, the balance of her mind was lost—“either as a result of a temporary insanity or possibly an epileptic equivalent.” the witness said. He favoured the former explanation.

Dr. Hall's Evidence Thomas Edwin Hall, medical superintendent of Sunnyside Hospital, said he was called into the case by the Police Department, and examined Lorimer at the police station on December 8, and again on December 2 4. He said he formed the opinion that throughout her adult life Lorimer had been an abnormal personality, who suffered emotional tension under stress. To allay it she had resorted to alcohol and tranquilliser drugs.

“During the three months or more before the alleged offence she had in my opinion suffered from a state of depression. apparently related to her menopause, although not of severe degree.” He also concluded that Lorimer and her mother had a close, but abnormal, relationship. Mrs Coxhead appeared to have been a dominant personality—“and 1 ascribe to this relationship much of Mrs Lorimer’s emotional difficulties in life,” the witness said. He considered that, on a deeper, unconscious level. Lorimer harboured considerable resentment and hostility towards her mother of which she was unaware. At interviews he found Lorimer a co-operative person of at least average intelligence who could discuss herself rationally. Fitness To Plead He considered, when he examined her, that she was fit to plead in court, and mentioned that in his preliminary report. From Lorimer’s discussion of the events on December 1, ihe considered there was no premeditation of the killing, which occurred during an acute emotional crisis. The witness related the events between Lorimer and her mother, as Lorimer had told him—events which corresponded. in the main, with the statement made by Lorimer to the police. Lorimer, on pushing her mother to the ground, had felt panic and extreme guilt. Lorimer had said to him: “My mother always gave me a guilt complex—even that day.” Lorimer recalled striking her mother with the barometer, but not how often. Lorimer had thought: “I’ve done something terrible—l can’t leave her like this.”

At this point, Lorimer had said, she had gone to the kitchen, taken a knife, and cut her mother’s throat. “In my opinion,” said the witness, “she has been suffering from severe neurotic personality disorder throughout her adult life. In the months preceding the alleged offence, she was also depressed in her mood. This degree of mental disturbance did not, however, amount to what is commonly termed ‘insanity,’ nor was she insane on the occasions on which I examined her. “At the time of Lorimer’s killing of her mother, there was a state of acute emotional crisis.

“In such a state of mind, I do not think she was capable of reasoning in a normal way, and acting in a reasonable manner. Her actions were, in the main, governed by her emotions—and acute fear and extreme guilt. “I do not consider she was responsible for her actions at the time,” he said. Cross-Examination Cross-examined, the witness did not agree that Lorimer had been able to give full details of what she had done, and thought, at Albany street. She recalled some things, “but even those things she did, one wondered to what extent her recall was accurate," he said. Mr Roper: Would you agree that any person who had battered their parent, and cut the throat, would probably have difficulty in remembering precisely every action that was taken, and every thought that passed through their mind? The witness: I think it would all depend on their mental state.

Asked whether a feeling of guilt would not be thought of any person doing such a deed, the witness said: “1 have related the feeling of guilt and panic to her mother falling down when pushed.” She felt extremely guilty about that? She thought the children would blame her if her mother had another stroke? She felt she could not go through her mother being ill again?—This seemed to me the best she could recall of the thoughts which flashed through her mind. Barometer So she therefore hit her mother with barometer?—So she told me. Meaning to kill her?—l don’t know. But she made sure her mother did not have another stroke, didn’t she?—lt would appear so, but Mrs Lorimer at the time was not thinking quietly and calmly as we are now. Doctor, can you imagine anybody cutting their mother’s throat calmly?—No. She was acting, wasn’t she, as you would expect anybody to act in the circumstances? —No. You don’t think so?—No. She thought, “I’ve done something terrible. I can’t leave her like that?”—That is how she put it to me. She has done something terrible, and she knows it, doesn’t she? —Yes. She knew, and she then cut her mother’s throat?—Yes. And she did that because she didn’t want to leave her mother the way she was?— Yes. You consider that in this whole incident she was not acting in a reasonable manner?—Yes.

Nobody could cut somebody’s throat and be acting in a reasonable manner?—lt all depends on the circumstances.

Can you visualise circumstances when a person cuts another’s throat and you could say, they are acting in a reasonable and normal manner? —Yes, in war time. You take the view that no person who cuts someone else’s throat, in circumstances such as these, is responsible for what she does unless she does it in war time? —I can visualise other circumstances. Self-Defence I Cases of self-defence, perI haps?—Yes ... 1 have heard of one person killing another to stop them suffering. Perhaps Mrs Lorimer had something like that in mind? —Yes, perhaps. Because she did say, didn't she, “I’ve done something terrible, I can’t leave her like that” Would you agree she was acting in a reasonable manner after all. in putting her mother out of her suffering?—lf applied to the totality of what happened, I would say no: she was not acting in a reasonable manner.

Pressed about his subscription to the theory of Lorimer suffering from psychomotor epilepsy, the witness said: “I think it is a possibility.” He added that he could neither substantiate it nor refute it. Mr Roper: Something you would rather leave well alone as a theory? The witness: Well. yes. Because I cannot answer either yes or no.

Asked to accept that Lorimer knew what she was doing when she hit her mother and cut her throat, the witness

said: “I think she was only partially aware of what she was doing.” Mr Roper: She knew what she was doing was morally wrong, didn't she?

The witness: I feel that it depends on one’s exact definition of the word “know.” She knew what she had done was something terrible? —Yes, but what she considered was something terrible is not quite clear. After hitting her mother on the head she saw her mother still showed signs of life? Isn’t that correct? —That is how she recalled it, although how accurate her recall is I don’t know. Then her thought was, “I have done something terrible?”—Yes. She knew what she had done was terrible—Yes. John Robert Earle Dobson, psychiatric physician to the North Canterbury Hospital Board, gave evidence that Lorimer, in his opinion, had been labouring under disease of the mind, on December 1 incapable of understanding the nature and quality of her act in killing her mother, and incapable of knowing it was morally wrong. During a long cross-examin-ation, he agreed that Lorimer was not certifiable, and as to the detailed events at Albany street, gave his opinion that Lorimer had only islands of memory, but in the course of the next few days had reconstructed the account she gave to the police. Lorimer, he thought, had not immediately confessed to wh:t she had done because she wanted time to obtain drugs to commit suicide. “Close Friendship” Evidence of close friendship with Lorimer over the last two years was given by Lester Ronald Cant, an accountant. He had found her a very sweet person, he said, and never angry. Her attention to her mother exceeded what would be expected to anybody. She was also an excellent mother.

To further questions, the witness said he had never seen Lorimer have attacks of anger or irritability accompanied by violent language, although he was aware, from the evidence, that these had been mentioned when Lorimer had been taken by Ruricj Hunter to Dr. W. N. Rogers in 1962. Questioned about Lorimer’s drinkirig, the witness said he had seen her under the influence of liquor on many occasions, but in varying degrees. He had not seen her drunk. He had often thought drink had a very rapid effect on her. Asked about what Lorimer had told him of the events at Albany street on December 1, the witness said: “She never really said.” Pressed further, he said that Lorimer had told him that unless she could believe what she had

read in the newspapers, and been told during the investigations, she would doubt whether she could give an account of happenings on that day. Mr Roper: So you say, in effect, that Mrs Lorimer has reconstructed the events of that day from what she has been told, and read? Th. witness agreed that Lorimer’s information about the knife could not have been something told to her, or read —nor her information about the missing barometer. But Mrs Lorimer knew where it was?—Correct. Do I understand you to say tha you still do not believe Mrs Lorimer’s confession? — If I did say that, perhaps it would be more exact to say I just don’t want to. The trial will resume this morning.

Symptoms of Lorimer’s dazed condition at times, which might seem to be due to alcohol, he thought attributable to something else, he said. He had seen these symptoms when he was confident she had not had access to liquor.

Although aware she experienced difficulties during menstrual periods, he attributed the symptoms largely to the strain of Lorimer’s work. He gave matters great thought, but considered they were better left unsaid, and that things would right themselves when Lorimer underwent the menopause. The witness said he had discussed his marital circumstances with Lorimer, and told her that until he obtained his freedom he would not seriously discuss with her the question of marriage. On December 3, said the witness, he was at Lorimer’s home for an evening meal, and remained until 10.30 p.m. “She was undoubtedly suffering from a form of shock—as appeared natural—but otherwise appeared normal.” On Saturday, December 4, he suggested they go out to play a few holes of golf, and he took Lorimer out to dinner that night. . They arrived home at 7.45 p.m., when Lorimer’s brother, Tonks, telephoned to say that both he (Tonks) and Lorimer were required at the police station for blood tests. Apart from still showing some signs of shock, Lorimer appeared normal. On their return home again a picnic was arranged for the following day. Affected By Drugs On Sunday, said the witness, he arrived at Beverley street at 9 a.m. and took a newspaper up to Lorimer’s bedroom, but finding her sleeping heavily, went downstairs, and at 10 a.m. took her up a cup of tea. Finding her eyes glazed and her pulse heavy he realised she was affected by drugs, and called her daughter. [Warwick Beverley Wyatt, a Papanui road chemist, gave evidence of a repeat prescription made up for Lorimer on December 2, 1965. The prescription was for nodular capsules and anatensol tablets — 12,000 milligrams of the former, and 30 milligrams of the latter. To Mr Roper, Wyatt said they were prescribed by Dr. Mayell. Dr. J. R. E. Dobson said this would be a dangerous dose, and could easily be fatal.]

Cant said he found an envelope in Lorimer’s drawer, which he gave to her daughter. On subsequently learning of Lorimer’s confession, he could only half believe it. Mr Roper: Your association with Mrs Lorimer was an intimate one?

The witness: What do you mean by “intimate”? You were lovers, is that correct?—We were very close friends. Is that all?—Yes. Are you sure; Mr Cant?— Yes.

Are your feelings for each other still the same?— Stronger. Is it correct to say that so far as your feelings were concerned, there tfas no question of marriage?—l feel quite certain that our association would have culminated in marriage, but I would not make any promises to Mrs Lorimer until I had my freedom.