1 1 NO. 90-CI-06033 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION ONE 2 3 4 JOYCE FENTRESS, et al PLAINTIFFS 5 6 VS TRANSCRIPT_OF_THE_PROCEEDINGS __________ __ ___ ___________ 7 8 9 SHEA COMMUNICATIONS, et al DEFENDANTS 10 11 * * * 12 13 14 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1994 15 VOLUME XVIII 16 17 * * * 18 19 20 21 _____________________________________________________________ REPORTER: JULIA K. McBRIDE 22 Coulter, Shay, McBride & Rice 1221 Starks Building 23 455 South Fourth Avenue Louisville, Kentucky 40202 24 (502) 582-1627 FAX: (502) 587-6299 25 2 1 2 I_N_D_E_X _ _ _ _ _ 3 4 WITNESS: DOCTOR_PETER_BREGGIN - Continued _______ ______ _____ _______ 5 Examination by Mr. Smith................................. 7 6 Examination by Mr. Freeman...............................109 7 Further Examination by Mr. Smith.........................190 8 9 Reporter's Certificate...................................204. 10 * * * 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 A_P_P_E_A_R_A_N_C_E_S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 4 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 5 PAUL L. SMITH Suite 745 6 Campbell Center II 8150 North Central Expressway 7 Dallas, Texas 75206 8 NANCY ZETTLER 1405 West Norwell Lane 9 Schaumburg, Illinois 60193 10 IRVIN D. FOLEY Rubin, Hays & Foley 11 300 South, First Trust Centre Louisville, Kentucky 40202 12 13 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 14 EDWARD H. STOPHER Boehl, Stopher & Graves 15 2300 Providian Center Louisville, Kentucky 40202 16 JOE C. FREEMAN, JR. 17 LAWRENCE J. MYERS Freeman & Hawkins 18 4000 One Peachtree Center 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. 19 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 20 * * * 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 The Transcript of the Proceedings, taken before 2 The Honorable John Potter in the Multipurpose Courtroom, Old 3 Jail Office Building, Louisville, Kentucky, commencing on 4 Wednesday, October 19, 1994, at approximately 9:08 A.M., said 5 proceedings occurred as follows: 6 7 * * * 8 9 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 10 MS. ZETTLER: Judge, I know you'll be proud of 11 me, I did Max Talbott's deposition last night and whiddled it 12 down from 600 pages to about 40, so if we can do those at 13 lunch. 14 JUDGE POTTER: That's fine. 15 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 16 SHERIFF CECIL: All rise. The jury is now 17 entering. Court is now in session. You may be seated. 18 JUDGE POTTER: Please be seated. Ladies and 19 gentlemen of the jury, did anybody have any difficulty with my 20 admonition over the evening? Whose turn is it? Ms. Ryan, did 21 you have any problems with the admonition? 22 JUROR RYAN: No, sir. 23 JUDGE POTTER: Let me mention two things. One, 24 I was watching television last night about a trial, and one of 25 the news things was talking about the O. J. Simpson trial. 5 1 And apparently there's been a book published and the judge -- 2 the commentator said something about the judge was concerned 3 that giving the jury the admonition or the potential jurors 4 the admonition not to read the book might not be effective or 5 they even used the term "probably wouldn't work" or something 6 like that. 7 You know, there's nothing wrong with you-all 8 watching about O. J. Simpson, but I did want to emphasize that 9 if you-all saw a program like that, I would consider an 10 admonition not to read a book to work. You might hear people 11 on TV say, "Well, in California or wherever that if a judge 12 tells a jury not to read a book, you know, that's not going to 13 work," and from that you might get the idea that what I tell 14 you every day about reading things or letting people talk to 15 you about it is some kind of show or I'm not serious about it. 16 I mean, when I heard them say that on TV, I thought it would 17 be the easiest thing in the world; I simply explain to the 18 jury if I find out anybody is reading the book, you'll end up 19 in jail, and it would work. So I just want to emphasize, the 20 reason I say these things every day is because they're 21 important. 22 There are some things, I don't know whether it's 23 the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag or whatever it happens to 24 be that you say all the time and you don't really think you 25 mean it. This is for real. I mean what I say. Okay? And 6 1 it's important. It has real consequences for you as an 2 individual as well as the system, so it's something you have 3 to be conscious of. 4 Let me tell you about the exhibits. When we 5 tried to find a place to store those boxes where they're 6 securely locked up, we found out we've kind of run into 7 problems. It's hard in this building to find a closet or a 8 space that is totally secure where we don't have to stack them 9 all on top of each other or make it very difficult to get to. 10 There were some cleaning spaces but they would be difficult to 11 make secure, and unless anybody sees a problem with this, I've 12 talked with the attorneys and they feel that that one box will 13 probably allow you-all to get through the rest of the trial. 14 And what my plans would be is to leave your boxes in the jury 15 room and you'll have your name on them. And I can 99.9 16 percent assure you that nobody is ever going to look in that 17 box, because the cleaning people don't, they'll be instructed 18 that's locked at night. But it won't have the same level 19 of -- the folders you have go to the closet; the only person 20 that has a key to it is my sheriff. They go in at night and 21 they come out in the morning. 22 So what I'm going to suggest, if you-all think 23 it's workable or if anybody has any problem with it, that 24 things you haven't written on or things like that, put them in 25 the box; it stays in the jury room. Anything you want to have 7 1 extra secure -- and, by all means, I'm going to collect your 2 tablets like it's been done, and that will go in the closet at 3 night. Does anybody think that will make you feel 4 uncomfortable? And you can bring it all out with you today. 5 If somebody feels particularly sensitive, you can put it all 6 on the cart. And I'm assuming each of you has about six 7 inches' worth of stuff that you haven't written anything on. 8 I think it's 99 percent certain that, you know, if anybody 9 ever looked at it, it would be another jury that rummaged in 10 the wrong box trying to find their own stuff. So we'll do 11 that. The boxes will stay in the jury room, but the cart will 12 be locked up every night, but the notes will go on the cart 13 and anything else you want will go on the cart. 14 Doctor, I'll remind you you're still under oath. 15 Mr. Smith. 16 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. 17 18 EXAMINATION ___________ 19 20 BY_MR._SMITH: (Continued) __ ___ _____ 21 Q. Doctor Breggin, we have spent a great deal of 22 time talking about Prozac and your findings and your research 23 in connection with the dangers and risks presented by Prozac 24 to individuals in the clinical trials and to individuals 25 generally in the postmarketing experience. I'd like to focus 8 1 with you this morning, Doctor Breggin, on Joseph Wesbecker, 2 the individual who went into Standard Gravure and committed 3 this act on September 14th, 1989. Have you, Doctor Breggin, 4 reviewed facts in connection with Mr. Wesbecker himself? 5 A. Yes, sir; I have. 6 Q. And would you explain to the jury what facts you 7 reviewed, what toxicology you reviewed to make yourself 8 familiar with Mr. Wesbecker? 9 A. Well, I reviewed every record that was 10 available, every health record, his hospitalizations, his 11 psychiatric treatments. I reviewed the coroner's inquest 12 which had a lot of testimony in it that was relevant. Doctor 13 Coleman gave a number of depositions, and since he was the 14 person there evaluating the situation, I thought that was 15 important, so I looked over all his depositions and compared 16 them to his notes in his record. I read a variety of 17 depositions surrounding the issue; in particular, I was 18 interested in the family, the people who saw him most 19 recently, which was his former wife, his son James, and his 20 friend James. So I looked over the -- as much of the stuff 21 surrounding the actual events as I could. 22 Q. When you talk about his friend James, are you 23 talking about Mr. Jim Lucas? 24 A. Yeah. Jim Lucas. 25 Q. And did you review Mr. Lucas's wife's 9 1 deposition, also? 2 A. Yes. I also looked at his wife's deposition and 3 her diary because we have really two contemporaneous 4 documents; we have her diary and we have the doctor's notes. 5 Q. There has been a number of depositions taken, 6 Doctor Breggin, of co-workers, of people who knew 7 Mr. Wesbecker at work, saw him in varying amounts of time. 8 Have you reviewed those depositions or summaries of those 9 depositions, also? 10 A. Yes. Not in as great detail because most of 11 those are not right around the event and they're after the 12 event has occurred, and people's viewpoints change after a 13 tragedy occurs. People see things or reinterpret things very 14 commonly in line with the tragedy. So I was really concerned 15 about what happened at the time, what did people see at the 16 time. 17 Q. Okay. Did you consider any record any more 18 important than any other record or did you begin with anything 19 in particular that you were looking for, Doctor Breggin? 20 A. Well, my main focus in the beginning was on 21 Doctor Coleman's record because he had seen this man for two 22 years. He's the trained observer. He's the person -- the 23 only person in the picture who has familiarity with the 24 medication, knows how to evaluate the individual, can make an 25 estimate of the condition of the person, whether it's 10 1 deteriorating or improving. He's the only person we have who 2 is in a position to do that during the two-year period leading 3 up to the tragic events. 4 Q. Did you consider Doctor Coleman's notes 5 conclusive in connection with Mr. Wesbecker's medical 6 condition? 7 A. Well, I considered them to be the primary 8 document but, obviously, other people are getting other 9 sources of information. So I felt that the input from the 10 family and friend was also important, but I think the medical 11 record is among the most important things. 12 Q. All right. Let's begin, then, with Doctor 13 Coleman's records. Well, maybe before we begin with Doctor 14 Coleman's records, Doctor Breggin, can you give the jury a 15 basic outline of the mental health care and treatment that 16 Mr. Wesbecker had received up to the time he began with Doctor 17 Coleman? That might be a little more logical way to get into 18 this. 19 A. Well, he had a long history beginning really 20 significantly in 1980, of having psychiatric problems and 21 seeking help for them. I mean, I think that's one of the 22 really important things. And each time, there were events in 23 his life that played a role in his having difficulties. In 24 fact, his first two hospitalizations, 1980, 1984, were around 25 events with his wives, his first wife and his second wife. 11 1 And, like many people, when he went through separation and 2 divorce, it was probably the most traumatic experience of his 3 life, and he became depressed, he became anxious. At times he 4 became agitated, was described as being agitated during these 5 very severe, severe upheavals in his life. 6 Then in 1987, he had a third hospitalization, 7 and at that time the stress was more focused on work. And 8 again he showed the response that he had had in the past. 9 Over time -- finally, he ends up seeing Doctor Coleman for the 10 final two years and during much of this time he is taking 11 psychiatric medication; he is apparently taking it 12 responsibly; he seems to basically follow the Doctor's 13 directions. The pill counts that we have made -- that I've 14 made in terms of how many pills in his bottle at the time of 15 his death indicate that he was then, too, taking the 16 medication as directed. 17 Going all the way back into his childhood, we 18 know that he had a tough childhood. He didn't have an 19 unusually difficult one. I think the most startling things 20 were the loss of his father very early, about Year One; the 21 fact that his mother was overburdened; that his grandmother 22 helped a great deal to raise him; that for a time -- short -- 23 relatively short period of time he was actually in an 24 orphanage and going home to be with his grandmother. But 25 there isn't a history in his childhood of a lot of violence 12 1 directed at him. 2 It's not like somebody as we see in studies of 3 violence, in my own experience as a doctor, as a clinician, 4 somebody who has been trained to be violent. Very often 5 people who go ahead and commit terrible crimes when they grow 6 up, you can go back and you see that they're in an environment 7 where the people around them are violent. They're in an 8 environment in which the other young people are violent. 9 Often there's an older person who was very devoted to getting 10 even and standing up for themselves and not putting up with 11 anything, who trains the youngster and beats the youngster or 12 beats the youngster's mother in front of them. We don't have 13 that kind of history, but we do have a tough history. We have 14 a tough one. 15 Q. Well, would this tough childhood in your 16 judgment, as you characterize it, would that be any more 17 unusual than hundreds or thousands or maybe millions of people 18 experience in life? 19 A. I don't think very different, certainly not as 20 bad and as difficult as many I see routinely in my own work 21 with patients. I've spent a lot of time looking at the issues 22 of the origins of violence because that's a lot of what I 23 teach at the university is conflict resolution and origins of 24 violence. And what we know of people who become very violent 25 when they grow up, they have much more isolated lives than 13 1 this man. There's debate about how isolated he may have been 2 at one time or another, but this is not a man who couldn't 3 relate to women, doesn't have anybody at all in his life, has 4 always been unmarried, who's been rejected time and time 5 again, who can't relate to children, if he even has any, who 6 lives in a kind of a private fantasy world and then breaks 7 out, breaks out and assaults somebody. This is not a man who 8 lived in that kind of utter desolation. He had relationships. 9 In fact, his problems, like for so many of us, 10 develop when his relationships temporarily break up, and he 11 quickly gets another. He goes from his first marriage ending 12 to married again. When that marriage ended, he has the 13 remarkable wherewithal to maintain the relationship with his 14 wife. He maintains the relationship with both of his 15 ex-wives. At the time of this tragedy, he in fact has a 16 relationship with both of his sons, although for a time he was 17 estranged from one of his sons, hardly an unusual phenomena in 18 America. 19 So looking at the whole span of his life, you 20 see some ups and downs and you see some difficulties and you 21 see some serious mental problems at times. This is not the 22 caricature of your typical person who suddenly commits the 23 crime and you go back and you look at his life and almost 24 always, complete isolation. I mean, you don't go back and 25 find wives and kids talking about him like a responsible 14 1 person. You don't go back and find a relatively violent-free 2 life. 3 Now, he did obviously struggle with violent 4 impulses; about that, there can be no doubt. Around each of 5 his -- actually around his second divorce he was very, very 6 angry and he said the kinds of things that people do say 7 during periods of stress, but I think they were very serious 8 things. He talked about wanting to, you know, injure people, 9 wanting to hurt the ex-husband whom he thought was harassing 10 him, wanting to hurt one of the kids on one occasion. So he 11 talked at times. We have five or six incidents, maybe less, 12 where he talked about being very angry and wanting to hurt 13 people. And during one of the hospitalizations, the '87 one, 14 there is concern -- there is concern about his feelings toward 15 one of his supervisors, and the hospital sets as a goal to 16 help him overcome these very violent impulses that he seems to 17 be feeling from the hospital's viewpoint at that point. And 18 it's at that time that he does go to his place of work, 19 apparently, according to Jim Lucas, with a gun in a bag. And 20 I don't know how much testimony you've heard about this, but 21 apparently this was strangely not so uncommon there that this 22 happened. 23 So we do have a man who at times is struggling 24 with his impulses. We know that he had two suicide attempts, 25 at least that we know of, that seem to be corroborated. At 15 1 one point he mentions that he's had lots, at least that's put 2 in a record. I want to comment on that. I mean, I have seen 3 many records where with no documentation at all somebody 4 writes down, "Patient says he had 12 to 15 suicide attempts," 5 and you look and there's nothing in the record, and you ask 6 the patient and the patient says, "I don't know what that 7 doctor was thinking about." This happens time and time again 8 in my practice, my consultation work. You get one very 9 wild-sounding phenomena and then it turns out, in this case, 10 everybody interviewed didn't know anything about it. Most 11 people didn't know about the two that seemed to have occurred, 12 but nobody knows about five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. So 13 I wouldn't honestly take too seriously his one statement 14 allegedly that a doctor wrote in. 15 Remember, when a doctor writes a chart there's 16 no attorney to guide him, there's no attorney to protest; the 17 patient doesn't see what goes in it; there aren't all these 18 checks and balances that some very tired doctor who's maybe 19 thinking of something else or who is mishearing a statement 20 writes something down. So we don't have corroboration on that 21 particular remark, but certainly he was self-injurious and on 22 two occasions that we know of was self-injurious. 23 During the time that he's seeing Doctor Coleman, 24 he seems to be doing better and better. He -- in the 25 beginning of seeing Doctor Coleman, he's preoccupied with his 16 1 anger at work. 2 Q. Let's get to Doctor Coleman specifically -- 3 I've got his record -- in a minute, but -- 4 A. Let me think if there's anything else just about 5 the general history. I think I'm kind of giving you the sense 6 of what I think was going on. 7 Q. What were the differing psychiatric diagnoses 8 that had been made up to the time that Mr. Wesbecker came to 9 Doctor Coleman in 1987? 10 A. Well, he had been -- he went through the process 11 that people often go through when they're ending up with 12 several hospitalizations or experiences with psychiatrists. 13 It starts out I think where he's called depressed or something 14 less than that, dysthymia, which is like neurotic depression. 15 It's kind of an odd diagnosis, but it's intended to mean 16 something less than major depression. And then he also shows 17 at times that he can get very hyper and his mind seems to kind 18 of race a little bit and he's tense, and that's thought to be, 19 well, there's a manic component, a -- although we don't see a 20 real full-blown mania there's a manic component, so he gets 21 the diagnosis manic depressive, and that's what he comes to 22 Doctor Coleman with. 23 Then he sees Doctor Coleman for a while, and on 24 a couple occasions he sees some things that seem to Doctor 25 Coleman to kind of go beyond reality. He's suspicious that 17 1 Doctor Coleman is tape-recording him, but he seems to respond 2 to the reassurance. He may have some either visual problems 3 from the drugs or some kind of mental uncertainty about what 4 he's seeing. It's not an outright hallucination; he doesn't 5 see little, green men, but there's a visual or equilibrium 6 disturbance. Doctor Coleman is not sure what to make out of 7 this, so he takes a breath and he calls it schizoaffective 8 disorder. And that might take -- should I give a little 9 description maybe of what that means? 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. Affective refers to an emotional problem, so 12 depression is an affective disorder. Affect is emotion. 13 Manic depression is an affective disorder. Schizo refers to 14 the possibility of a schizophrenic tendency, which is looked 15 at as a thinking disorder. You have thoughts that are deluded 16 or irrationalizing, or also perceptions, you see or hear 17 things that aren't there. So when he became suspicious and 18 had some visual experiences, the doctor changed the diagnosis 19 to schizoaffective; however, this is not unusual, by the way, 20 I mean, the diagnosed categories in psychiatry are not like 21 the ones in medicine. They sort of shift and they're hard to 22 pin down. This is not an unusual phenomena. 23 I think most important is that, throughout, 24 Doctor Coleman and everyone else who saw him thought that he 25 got depressed. Being depressed was the big component of his 18 1 difficulties. And then he would go from being depressed to 2 getting sort of an agitated depression or a suspicious 3 depression, but that depressive problem was what came back and 4 that would have a lot to do with when he'd have losses in his 5 family life that he would get into a worse condition. 6 In retrospect, I think that Doctor Coleman's 7 diagnoses are fine. I probably would have stayed with manic 8 depressive; maybe Doctor Coleman might even with further 9 thought, because there isn't a lot of evidence that he has any 10 trouble with reality till the last session, then there's a 11 dramatic change in the last session. 12 Q. All right. Do you have Doctor Coleman's record 13 in front of you, Doctor Breggin, which is marked as 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 160? 15 A. Yeah. I have an unmarked Coleman's record. 16 MR. SMITH: All right. We would offer 17 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 160, Your Honor, Doctor Coleman's records. 18 MR. FREEMAN: No objection, Your Honor. 19 JUDGE POTTER: Be admitted. 20 SHERIFF CECIL: (Hands document to jurors). 21 Q. Now, let's generally identify the order in which 22 these go, and let me give you a marked copy so we make sure 23 we've got a copy stapled in the same order. You're looking at 24 a copy stapled in the same order that that exhibit with the 25 jury is. I have at the top of the first page that's marked 19 1 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 160, a notation of 6-26-89; is that right? 2 A. Yeah. Right. I turned them around so it's more 3 like I keep records, so we're -- yeah. 4 Q. All right. Why don't we go back. It looks like 5 this is in descending or ascending order, one of the two. Why 6 don't we go back to the first record of office visit of Doctor 7 Coleman back in 1987, and that would be probably on the third 8 from the back page, that visit marked 7-8-87. 9 A. Yeah. That's where I start. 10 Q. All right. And it has Joseph Wesbecker and then 11 it has notation, it says, "Forty-five-year-old self-referred." 12 It appears to me, then, that Doctor Coleman was seeing Mr. 13 Wesbecker as a result of Mr. Wesbecker going to him; is that 14 right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Does that have any significance to you, Doctor 17 Breggin? 18 A. Well, it indicates that he is seeking help as he 19 has always done. He sees himself as having a mental problem 20 and he sees himself as needing help, and that's throughout the 21 record. 22 Q. We've heard the term denial used in our social 23 context in a lot of instances in a lot of ways here within the 24 last few years. Would you say that Mr. Wesbecker was in 25 denial of his mental illness? 20 1 A. No. Throughout, he has a surprising degree of 2 acknowledgment that he has emotional problems. This is two 3 years before the tragedy, and a couple days before the tragedy 4 he's explaining to his son that he has mental difficulties and 5 he's concerned that his son has inherited them, and so, 6 throughout, he's taking seriously that he's got a problem. 7 Q. Is that a good predictor or a poor predictor 8 that a patient might get better, the fact that the patient 9 acknowledges that they have a mental illness? 10 A. It's a very good predictor. It's hard to help 11 somebody who doesn't want any help. In fact, there's many 12 questions about that in the profession, obviously. I mean, if 13 the person doesn't want help, it's very hard to help them; if 14 they do want help, if they see they have a problem, you can 15 develop a relationship and you can offer help to that 16 individual. 17 Q. "The patient states he is bipolar and needs a 18 psychiatrist to follow his medications. Patient presently is 19 on Lithobid, 300 milligrams, 2 in the morning and 2 at night. 20 He states that his last blood level was 1.0 about one month 21 ago." Is any of that of any significance to you, Doctor 22 Breggin? 23 A. Well, again, it's a surprisingly responsible 24 patient. He comes in with all the necessary information. He 25 has his chemistries and he knows what he needs and he's 21 1 looking for it. So he's behaving very responsibly. 2 Q. "He states that he has been bipolar for ten 3 years and on lithium less than one year. He was seeing Doctor 4 Schramm but did not want to be in group and left him." 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. Is that of any significance to you? 7 A. He's making an independent decision. I think 8 he's right about group. I mean, this is a man who is 9 comfortable, I think, with one person at a time and he's not 10 going to probably do very well in a group. Of course, he has 11 a lot of anxieties and tensions at work; on the other hand, 12 perhaps if he could have stayed in a group it might have 13 helped him deal with that issue, but it's really 14 understandable that he would prefer to be one on one with 15 somebody. 16 Q. All right. Next says, "Patient presents primary 17 stress as job and employers, quote, jerking him around, end 18 quote. Feels medication decreases his concentration and 19 ability to think and wants to be moved off his present job but 20 states his employer refuses." Correct? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. Is that of any significance to you? 23 A. Well, it repeats a theme that's been going on, 24 especially in his last hospitalization, that he really feels 25 injured at work. He feels taken advantage of at work, and his 22 1 thought that his medication decreases his concentration and 2 ability to think is consistent with his taking 1200 milligrams 3 of lithium. Many people find an interference with their 4 thinking processes, not enough to prevent them from 5 functioning, but many people report that memory or quickness 6 is -- or concentration isn't so good. So he's reporting 7 something that makes a great deal of sense, and I think the 8 Doctor will in fact try to lower his lithium. 9 Q. Anything about the past history that's recorded 10 there that is of any significance to you? 11 A. Well, again, he is very accurate about his 12 representations. His memory is intact. He's responsible. 13 He's not holding back anything at all from Doctor Coleman; 14 he's giving him a thumbnail of what he's been through as a 15 patient and the difficulties he's had, so the Doctor is not 16 going to be mistaken. He even tells him. I don't know if we 17 got to the sentence where he tells him that he's seen other 18 doctors and gives the names. So he's giving a very accurate 19 history as it's abbreviated here. 20 Q. The next notation there concerns his medical 21 history. Now, it says Lithobid; is that lithium? 22 A. Yes. That's lithium. Just consider it lithium 23 for all practical purposes. 24 Q. All right. And that dosage there, is that an 25 acceptable dosage of lithium for some patients or is there 23 1 such a thing as an acceptable range of dosage of lithium? 2 A. Well, the only way to tell whether the dosage 3 range of lithium is correct is through the blood level. This 4 is not an unusual dose, though. But the acceptance is within 5 the blood levels rather than the dose because people respond 6 differently to different doses and, to some extent, at 7 different times to different doses. 8 Q. The next medication is Tofranil, 200 milligrams 9 at night. What is Tofranil? 10 A. Tofranil is a very old, long-tried 11 antidepressant, and it could be given at night both for its 12 hypnotic value, it will tend to help one sleep, or for its 13 antidepressant effect. 14 Q. Is it a specific serotonin reuptake inhibitor or 15 is it a tricyclic or an MAOI? 16 A. It's a tricyclic, one of the safer groups of 17 drugs. It does affect serotonin but it's not -- it's not its 18 main impact. 19 Q. Next we have a social history, and anything 20 about that that's significant to you? 21 A. It just corroborates that he is readily able to 22 give an accurate history, and I think that's the main point 23 about it; that he says he's been divorced; that he explains 24 what he's been through, at least in enough detail for the 25 Doctor to get it in a relatively short period of time. 24 1 Q. Next is MSE, Mental Status Exam. What is a 2 mental status exam, Doctor Breggin? 3 A. Mental status exam covers many different things. 4 It's basically the doctor saying I've looked him over 5 mentally; this is my general impression of his mental 6 functioning. And it can go from that to a very formal exam, 7 which he probably didn't do under these conditions. 8 There's a more formal mental status exam where 9 you make sure you're examining the emotionality of the 10 patient, the communication flow of the patient, whether the 11 person understands where he is and what time it is and whether 12 he's oriented. You do a thorough evaluation. But in actual 13 practice, there's quite a variety in what a doctor will feel 14 is necessary at any given moment. These notations are very 15 typical of a doctor's record. He notices that the patient is 16 casually dressed. If he had seen something like that he was 17 disheveled, he would have mentioned it. And he notices that 18 there's a certain hyperness. He's quite talkative, he's 19 irritable, he's anxious, he's pacing; he doesn't call it 20 agitation. It probably falls short of that in the Doctor's 21 mind. And then he specifically says no -- 22 MR. FREEMAN: That's objectionable as to what's 23 in the Doctor's mind. 24 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Smith, I think your Witness 25 needs to deal with what the record says. 25 1 Go ahead, Doctor. 2 Q. All right. 3 A. He then goes on and says, "No flight of ideas." 4 Q. What does that mean, no flight of ideas? 5 A. That this is not a manic person. Flight of 6 ideas is one of the signs that we use to say that the mind is 7 really spinning, that ideas are really flying, the flight of 8 ideas, that that's not happening. And he also says, "No 9 psychotic symptoms," by which he surely means no 10 hallucinations or delusions or break with reality. And then 11 he has, "No suicidal or homicidal ideation," indicating he 12 actually asked him when he writes that down. 13 Q. Okay. His impression then is bipolar disorder? 14 A. Yes. That's identical to manic depressive 15 disorder. 16 Q. Okay. It says the plan was to continue the 17 present medications and obtain the records from Doctors 18 Schramm, Moore, Senler and OLOP, which I'm sure means Our Lady 19 of Peace; correct? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. Anything inappropriate or unusual about what 22 Doctor Coleman has diagnosed, what his plan is or what his 23 future mode of care seems to be? 24 A. No. The fact he's continuing medication is 25 quite common. A new patient presents in a situation, you want 26 1 to get to know them before you make any changes, but it also 2 suggests that he doesn't see any emergency, that the patient 3 is not deteriorating or otherwise he would have reconsidered 4 the treatment. So he's going to continue with the treatment; 5 he's being very responsible, he's going to order all the 6 appropriate medical records. 7 Q. All right. The findings there, then, of 8 irritability, anxiousness and pacing appear related to his 9 disorder at that time; is that right, Doctor? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And his job situation. You say his primary 12 stress at that time was his job; is that right? 13 A. It seems to be, in 1987, yes. 14 Q. All right. Let's go to the next time that 15 Mr. Wesbecker saw Doctor Coleman. It looks like we have a 16 brief note of 7-29-87 up on the top of the page before that; 17 is that right? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. All right. It says, "Patient states mood more 20 even since back on meds. Thinks a lot better at work. No 21 side effects of meds." Correct? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. Any comment about that, Doctor Breggin? 24 A. The patient's gotten a new doctor. He's got his 25 medications ordered again and it is doing well. 27 1 Q. Does the fact that he has a new doctor have any 2 significance in your experience in making people feel better 3 that are suffering from disorder such as doctor -- as Mr. 4 Wesbecker? 5 A. Yes. Depression in particular, you know, is 6 related to hopelessness, to a sense of despair, and meeting a 7 new doctor, liking him can be very helpful. And even his 8 difficulties at work, the suspiciousness he has, the feelings 9 of being abused, just having an ally -- he has a new ally now, 10 somebody who's going to seem like maybe trusting. So he may 11 have liked him very early, and all of that could have a 12 remarkably good influence on an individual. 13 Q. The next notation looks like four months later 14 in November of 1987; is that right? 15 A. Yes. Uh-huh. 16 Q. Or actually three and a half months. And Doctor 17 Coleman had told him to return in three months; is that right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is there anything significant about the fact 20 that Doctor Coleman was willing to allow three months to 21 elapse before he intended to see him? 22 A. Well, I understand that in Doctor Coleman's 23 opinion he was very stable. 24 MR. FREEMAN: Your Honor, we would object to 25 Coleman's opinion. 28 1 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Smith, I think your Witness 2 needs to stick with what the record says and not express what 3 Doctor Coleman's opinions are unless they're set out in his 4 record. 5 Q. Let me ask it this way, then. Generally, if you 6 see a psychiatrist who has been seeing a patient once every 7 month and then moves him to see him the next time in three 8 months, is that from a medical standpoint indicative of a 9 judgment on the part of the psychiatrist concerning the 10 patient's condition? 11 MR. FREEMAN: It's the same question. 12 JUDGE POTTER: No. It's a different question. 13 Objection overruled. 14 A. It almost always is, yes. 15 Q. Of what is it indicative of? 16 A. Well, if he were worried about him -- if a 17 doctor -- if a doctor were worried about his patient, he 18 wouldn't want him to go three months, because a lot can happen 19 in three months. You'd want to see him sooner first to check 20 his medications, see if he had the right amounts; second, to 21 give him some emotional support. While he's not doing intense 22 psychotherapy, just seeing the doctor is emotional support; 23 he'd want to keep an eye on him. It's fairly straightforward. 24 Q. All right. Then what is the patient's condition 25 on November 11th, 1987? 29 1 A. It says, "Mood has been stable, one episode of 2 anger at work. Has been put in less stressful job situation." 3 And then he goes on to talk about that he's having some side 4 effects from the drugs, tiredness, decreased sexual 5 performance, increased weight. And he puts in parentheses, 6 "side effects of Tofranil versus increased depression but mood 7 seems okay." So he's balancing in his mind. 8 MR. FREEMAN: We don't know what the doctor is 9 balancing in his mind. 10 JUDGE POTTER: Objection sustained. 11 A. Excuse me. Excuse me. 12 Q. Well, does Doctor Coleman there note a 13 determination of whether or not these symptoms that he's 14 seeing are side effects of the medication or have symptoms of 15 the underlying disease? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. All right. And what was his plan? 18 A. Well, he says "but mood seems okay," rather than 19 it's depression, and so he decreases the Tofranil to 100 20 milligrams every night as an attempt to handle the side 21 effects. 22 Q. When is the next notation concerning treatment 23 rendered by Doctor Coleman? 24 A. Two months later. 25 Q. Okay. And what was the notation at that time? 30 1 A. "Complained of continued level of depression 2 (tiredness, decreased sleep, decrease of sexual appetite). He 3 attributes some of this to medication, wants to try and get, 4 quote, partial disability, end quote. Advised him I need to 5 talk with his attorney about his case to see if this is an 6 alternative for him." 7 Q. What's your judgment, in your opinion, Doctor 8 Breggin, as to Mr. Wesbecker's condition at that time? 9 A. He seems to be still depressed. Whether it's a 10 little more depressed is not made too clear in the record. It 11 says "continued level of depression" and he has mentioned some 12 of these problems earlier, so he's struggling with some degree 13 of depression, and he talks about wanting to get a disability. 14 And the Doctor is willing to be active and actually get in 15 touch with the attorney, talk to the attorney. 16 Q. When did he next see Doctor Coleman? 17 A. He saw him toward the end -- well, no, toward 18 the end of the month. It looks to me like it's probably a 19 telephone call, although that's not marked as such, on January 20 24th, '88, "Talked with attorney Sandy Berman. Talked about 21 feasibility of workers' comp claim." It would be unusual if 22 he went out of his way and met him personally. Perhaps he 23 did. Perhaps he did. It isn't marked telephone call. 24 Q. But it certainly doesn't indicate it was an 25 office visit and treatment rendered to Mr. Wesbecker on 31 1 January 24th, 1988, does it? 2 A. I can't tell from that. 3 Q. All right. When is -- 4 A. Well, now -- oh. Oh. Maybe he's saying -- no, 5 I think he's saying he talked with Attorney Sandy Berman, but 6 maybe he's saying the patient did. Maybe it is the patient. 7 It's unclear to me. I had had an assumption; now I look at it 8 again, it's unclear. 9 Q. April 6, 1988, appears to be the next time that 10 Doctor Coleman saw Mr. Wesbecker. What was his condition at 11 that time? 12 A. "Patient continues to feel somewhat depressed, 13 lack of energy, trouble sleeping, lack of interest." 14 Q. Anything about that unusual? 15 A. No, other than he just seems to maintain a kind 16 of a low level of feeling depressed. 17 Q. And, again, it's about how long at least since 18 he had last seen Doctor Coleman? 19 A. Well, since sometime in January, so that's three 20 months. 21 Q. All right. And then when did he next see him? 22 A. Again in three months. At this time the Doctor 23 takes lithium level, a CBC and SMA 18, which is just a blood 24 screen, typical blood screen, various or routine blood test. 25 Does a thyroid profile, a TSH, a thyroid stimulating hormone, 32 1 and a U/A and laboratory -- and he puts in parentheses, 2 laboratory tests. 3 Q. What was his condition on June 9th, 1988? 4 A. "Continues to feel depressed even with decrease 5 of antidepressant. Continued side effects. States mood has 6 really not been good times three years. Irritability at work 7 and home, sleeps poorly, continues to focus on work problems." 8 Q. Okay. What does that tell you as a 9 psychiatrist, Doctor Breggin, about Mr. Wesbecker's condition 10 at that time? 11 A. It sounds like it's a combination of this is how 12 it always is and maybe it's a little worse or maybe he's 13 wishing he could do more about it. It's nothing drastic at 14 this point. 15 Q. The plan there says, "Discontinue Tofranil. 16 Start Prozac 20 milligrams every day. Lithium level. Patient 17 prefers to try to keep working if possible but may have to put 18 on medical leave." Correct? 19 A. Yes. That would indicate even more than the 20 note above that he's feeling more stressed than he has been 21 because he's getting nearer to wanting medical leave. 22 Q. All right. And this is the first time in Mr. 23 Wesbecker's history that he's ever received Prozac, is it not? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. That's June 9th, 1988, that the notation is made 33 1 that he's to start the Prozac; correct? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. What occurred next in connection with 4 Mr. Wesbecker's treatment? 5 A. There's a phone call on June 20th, 1988, and it 6 says, "Patient's lithium level 1.5. I called patient. He was 7 unsure whether he took A.M. (morning) lithium that day. Will 8 decrease dose to 900 milligrams per day and recheck in two 9 weeks." 10 Q. Is the lithium level of 1.5 normal or abnormal? 11 A. That is an abnormal level. 12 Q. All right. How abnormal is it? 13 A. With a person who is on a maintenance dose, the 14 general recommendation is to stay below 1, 1 or below; .8 is 15 considered a nice level. Anything between 1 and 1.5 is 16 getting in the more dangerous range and 1.5 is generally 17 considered too high. The only time you might see a level like 18 that would be in a mental hospital, a person who is being 19 carefully monitored and is very out of control and effort is 20 being made to control seriously disturbed behavior. It is not 21 what you would ever maintain anybody on in a private practice 22 setting. 23 Q. You said -- the notation there says, "He was 24 unsure whether he took A.M. (morning) lithium that day," 25 which is the day he was checked, I assume? 34 1 A. Right. 2 Q. What's the significance of that, Doctor Breggin? 3 A. You're supposed to not take your morning dose 4 when you get your blood levels so that there's a constancy 5 that lab can relate to, that doctor can relate to, that here 6 it is, it's 12 hours -- roughly 12 hours later, that's when 7 we're getting our blood level and that's what we're going to 8 compare each time, and it's a time in which the blood level 9 should be fairly stable. But if he took his morning dose, it 10 could have given him a somewhat higher level, if he took it by 11 mistake when he got his lab test and he couldn't remember. 12 Q. The next notation is 6-29-88. It says, "Off 13 Prozac for the last several days because of complained of 14 fatigue. Has improved since off Prozac. Still feels 15 depressed and willing to try to alleviate this." And then 16 there's a plan there that indicates that Prozac will not be 17 continued? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you have an explanation as to why Mr. 20 Wesbecker would have discontinued his Prozac, why he would 21 have discontinued it as a result of these complaints of 22 fatigue, Doctor Breggin? 23 A. Yes. It's a confusing situation because Prozac 24 can elevate the lithium level. So what very possibly happened 25 is that with the taking of Prozac the lithium level is now 35 1 beyond that which the doctor considers safe, and the doctor -- 2 the doctor then says we'll cut back on the lithium. Now, the 3 patient is feeling fatigued. That could be very, very easily. 4 In fact, I would expect him to be fatigued, worn-out feeling 5 at the 1.5 level. He's not used to that. That's not what he 6 gets. And so he's probably feeling fatigued because Prozac 7 has elevated his lithium level. 8 Q. All right. 9 A. There could be other reasons, but that would be 10 the most probable. Then what happens is that doctor says 11 lower your lithium level. The patient thinks to himself, "I 12 think it's my Prozac." He stops his Prozac; he feels less 13 fatigued. The patient says, "It's due to my Prozac," but he's 14 had his lithium level lowered. There would be no way to say 15 which it is, but we can say that 1.5 is enough to make anybody 16 fatigued. So I say, medical probability, it's the lithium 17 level that was making him fatigued. 18 Q. Obviously, Doctor Breggin, the question that 19 arises here is that if Prozac caused Mr. Wesbecker to commit 20 these acts on September 14th, 1989, why didn't it cause him to 21 do it in June of 1988 when he took it? 22 A. Well, there are many, many different possible 23 reasons. One, he's not on it as long. He was on for 16 24 tablets. The bottle -- I checked, the bottle was identified 25 as having 16 tablets. When I subtracted how many were there 36 1 from what was supposed to be there, he had taken 16 days; 2 that's considerably less than he took the other time. 3 Secondly, he has a high level of lithium which is making him 4 fatigued and certainly suppressing his responsiveness. 5 Lithium is an anti-agitation medication. As we 6 saw yesterday in my testimony, there are people who have 7 gotten very violent on Prozac while on lithium, but the 8 lithium would tend to suppress that response. And he's on a 9 high level of lithium at this point, higher than he's supposed 10 to be. So the situation is very complicated and is by no 11 means just a replica of what happens later on. 12 In addition, people do respond differently. I 13 mean, we have an example here with the lithium. All of a 14 sudden he's got a higher lithium level, maybe from the Prozac, 15 maybe he was drinking less and got dehydrated. 16 Q. You mean drinking less fluids, not necessarily 17 alcohol? 18 A. Less fluids. Not alcohol at all, no. Drinking 19 less fluids. So we see here the variability of the human 20 system in response to a medication. It could have just been 21 the variability; it could have been the presence of the 22 lithium; it could have been the shorter time. And as Doctor 23 Beasley's report, when he is talking about -- he was the Lilly 24 doctor who looked at agitation and found that 38 percent of 25 the patients on Prozac are agitated. 37 1 MR. FREEMAN: That report has been ruled out 2 several times. 3 A. I didn't know that. I apologize. 4 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Smith was supposed to tell 5 you. 6 Q. I'm sorry. 7 A. So I can't comment on that document? 8 Q. Yes. Don't comment on that document. 9 A. Anyway, you can have a mixed situation from 10 Prozac where you're agitated and fatigued or you can get 11 fatigue from Prozac. That's very clear in the documents that 12 I showed you on the board, that you can get a variety of 13 responses to Prozac. But in this unique situation, it's 14 shorter, he's on this lithium, he's got the high lithium 15 level. There's no reason to think that it's in any way 16 identical to the next time. 17 Q. Well, could it be possible, Doctor Breggin, that 18 it's significant that Mr. Wesbecker is potentially having some 19 reaction to the Prozac? 20 A. Yes. There is no doubt that if a patient has a 21 serious negative reaction to a medication there's a 22 possibility that he will again, but not necessarily the same 23 one. And, in fact, it has been noted that people who have a 24 fatigue response to Prozac can be at risk for behavioral 25 abnormalities later on. 38 1 Q. All right. It says that in the 6-29 notation 2 that Doctor Coleman was going to start Pamelor, 25 milligrams, 3 every day for 5 days, then 50 milligrams. What is Pamelor? 4 A. Pamelor is another tricyclic antidepressant. It 5 may have less sedating effects than the one he took earlier. 6 The Doctor may be hoping that there will be less of a fatigue 7 or sedation response than before. And he's starting it in an 8 appropriate manner, gradually, because he's been trained that 9 that's what you do with a drug like that as far as experience. 10 Q. The notation appears 7-21-88, which was a phone 11 call, indicating that the meds were helping somewhat but wants 12 to increase, and that the Pamelor was increased to 75 13 milligrams a day. Anything significant about that notation, 14 Doctor Breggin? 15 A. No, just that Doctor Coleman is trying to stay 16 on -- I'm sorry. This is the treatment you'd do as a doctor 17 if you were trying to stay on top of things. It's well within 18 normal medical practice with doses. 19 Q. Okay. The next notation is 8-8-88. Phone call. 20 "Increased illusionary incidents (floor and ceiling moving). 21 Increased on his own to 4 lithium a day and 5 Pamelor with no 22 benefit. Work performance has deteriorated." Correct? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. What's the significance of these notations, 25 Doctor Breggin? 39 1 A. Well, he's having some problems, clearly. Now, 2 increased illusionary incidents, that is not a delusion. An 3 illusion is like a misperception. It's not an irrational, 4 bizarre, breaking-with-reality phenomena; that would be called 5 a delusion rather than an illusion, and it's floor and ceiling 6 moving. That is not typical of a mental disorder of a 7 psychiatric origin, say, rather than drug induced. This 8 sounds like he's having balance or visual problems, probably 9 due to the medication increase, and he has mistakenly given 10 himself even more medicine thinking that's what's going to 11 help. That would be my retrospective analysis of that; that 12 is, floor and ceiling moving is very different from "my walls 13 are wired and the FBI is listening to me" or a kind of 14 delusionary experience. 15 Q. Is it normal for a patient to report illusions 16 if a patient is suffering from bipolar disorder? 17 A. I don't think it's particularly related to that. 18 I think it's quite often that people have responses like this 19 to medication. 20 Q. All right. It says the plan there is obtain 21 medical leave of absence as of 8-7-88, to try and stabilize 22 his condition. He was going to decrease lithium and decrease 23 Pamelor. 24 A. The Doctor writes, "Work performance has 25 deteriorated," and I think that's obviously key here. And the 40 1 Doctor responds to that by obtaining medical leave and 2 decreases lithium and Pamelor, probably as I do, thinking that 3 that's what's making the floor and ceiling move. 4 Q. All right. On 8-10-88, it says that, "The 5 patient called Monday. Increased pressure at work and 6 increased depressive feelings. Poor sleep. Interpersonal 7 relationships at work poor. Continues to have illusions." It 8 looks like Mr. Wesbecker is having some problems at this time. 9 A. Yes. He's definitely having some problems. It 10 appears to be probably a combination of work and medication, 11 and the Doctor indeed continues to decrease the Pamelor 12 because all of the floor-and-ceiling stuff started with the 13 Pamelor and now the Doctor is removing the Pamelor, so he's 14 right on top of that situation. He's raising the lithium 15 because he doesn't think the lithium -- well, I can't say -- 16 you would raise the lithium if you didn't think the lithium 17 was causing the floor-and-ceiling movement, and I wouldn't 18 think it would. It's more typical of an antidepressant. And 19 he is not worried -- he says return in a month. He doesn't 20 say return in a week. 21 Q. So if in a normal psychiatric patient Doctor 22 Coleman were abnormally concerned or the psychiatrist were 23 abnormally concerned, would it be usual to ask the patient to 24 return in a month as opposed to a shorter time? 25 A. It would be unusual. 41 1 Q. Unusual? 2 A. It would be unusual to wait a month if you were 3 very concerned. 4 Q. All right. Then it appears the next notation is 5 a phone call to Herbert Segal, patient's attorney, 6 re: disability; correct? 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. And is it your understanding that Mr. Wesbecker 9 was placed on either sick leave or disability sometime in 10 August 1988? 11 A. Yes. On August 10th it says, "Patient placed on 12 disability because of mental state." I'm not sure. I think 13 he may have been put on sick leave and then formally on 14 disability later, but he's no longer working. 15 Q. There's a notation on 10-8, that maybe is 16 miss -- maybe it's a continuation. Maybe he saw him and 17 talked to him on 8-10-88, because there's "10" notations on 18 both pages; is that correct? 19 A. Oh, I see that. Yeah. Uh-huh. 20 Q. It says, "Still complains of concentration and 21 memory problems and mood down. Patient placed on disability 22 because of mental state. Continues to have visual illusions. 23 Stabilize Lithobid, two morning, two night. Pamelor, 50 24 milligrams. At this time patient seems more schizoaffective 25 rather than bipolar with strong affective component." 42 1 A. Yes. At this point he has decided that with the 2 patient still having these visual illusions that it's probably 3 not the antidepressant, which is what I originally thought, he 4 originally thought, as you go through the record. Now he's 5 beginning to think that it's a psychiatric problem. 6 MR. FREEMAN: Wait a minute. He's talking about 7 what he thinks. 8 JUDGE POTTER: Sustain the objection. Doctor 9 Breggin needs to stay out of Doctor Coleman's head. 10 Q. Your opinions need to be based on what a 11 psychiatrist would do and these interpretations as a 12 psychiatrist as opposed to getting into Doctor Coleman's head. 13 A. I don't mean to persist in that. It's a matter 14 of putting myself in his place in the record. 15 Q. All right. Don't do that. 16 All right, go back now. It looks like Mr. 17 Wesbecker has been under the care of Doctor Coleman for a 18 year. Count the times that Mr. Wesbecker has complained of 19 anger or agitation or irritability. 20 A. Well, we have irritability, anxious and pacing 21 the first visit. He's never again described in that manner, 22 just that first visit. And then on June 9th, it says, 23 "Irritable at work and home," but that's a different concept 24 than of that pacing kind of irritability that's described. It 25 sounds more like aggravated or annoyed. I mean, really it's 43 1 the first visit. 2 Q. All right. Now go to the September 7th, 1988 3 notation. It says, "Feels slightly better but memory still a 4 problem. Focused on anger at work. Also asked if I had 5 hypnotized him last session because of memory lapse during 6 session." The patient on that notation -- 7 A. Well, it's a confusing situation. Remember, I 8 mentioned to you yesterday that lithium can cause memory 9 problems. The Doctor has raised the lithium level in an 10 appropriate manner for medical practice to try to control the 11 patients upset, but the patient is also complaining of memory 12 problems, but now it gets more complicated. He, the patient, 13 wonders if the memory problem is related to the Doctor having 14 hypnotized him. I think I mistakenly earlier said when I 15 meant hypnotized said something else. 16 But, at any rate, now it begins to look more 17 like suspiciousness, more like it's a psychiatric kind of a 18 problem rather than a mental problem from the lithium. So 19 this would be confirming the diagnosis of schizoaffective 20 disorder. It's a hard situation to diagnose. We do know that 21 he's having psychiatric problems, he's depressed. He may have 22 a tendency toward the schizoaffective. 23 Q. Do you see any notation there about any intent 24 by the patient, Mr. Wesbecker, to murder or do any physical 25 violence to anyone? 44 1 A. No. It's important that he is discussing work. 2 He says he's focused on anger at work. It's important also to 3 relay that in the past he has told doctors that he has had 4 violent feelings and needed help with them. He did that in 5 the hospital. So I think that it's important that he is able 6 to do that. He has done that on that occasion and he's not 7 doing it now. He's discussing work but not making any threats 8 or feeling any impulse out of control. 9 Q. All right. The next notation is October 5th, 10 1988, where it states that Mr. Wesbecker "feels worse, 11 increased depression and visual illusions. Decreased sleep 12 and stays at home most of the time." What does that tell you 13 about Mr. Wesbecker's mental condition? 14 A. He's doing worse and the Doctor decided to 15 change antidepressants. 16 Q. All right. It says, "Switch to -- I'm sure 17 that's a typo -- to Desyrel, 100 milligrams at night and 18 increase to 200 milligrams at night." What is Desyrel? 19 A. Desyrel is yet another antidepressant. This 20 time, a unique class of antidepressant that doesn't affect 21 neurotransmitters in such a clear and straightforward fashion 22 as some others, and it produces a very serious side effect, 23 priapism, which is an erection of the male organ that won't go 24 down, and it can be very serious, even requiring surgery. And 25 I think it's important that the Doctor is being -- again, he's 45 1 responsible; he specifically warns the patient. I've seen it 2 happen where doctors don't warn patients, but this is the most 3 serious side effect of that drug. It's rare but it's very 4 serious, and so he warns him about it. 5 Q. Let me ask you this, Doctor Breggin. And we 6 lawyers are not supposed to ask our witnesses questions that 7 we don't know the -- or have a general idea what the answer 8 is, but let me ask you this because I don't know. Is priapism 9 with Desyrel more frequent as a side effect than anxiety, 10 agitation and nervousness is with Prozac? 11 A. Oh, it's much less frequent, much, much, much 12 less frequent. 13 Q. But he's being warned of the side effects of 14 Desyrel; is that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. On October 19th, 1988, the next notation says 17 there's a phone call. "Some dryness of eyes and muscle 18 cramps, but he feels this may be tension. Plan, increase 19 Desyrel to 300 milligrams." Anything significant about that 20 phone call to the patient? 21 A. Again, there's an issue of what is side effects 22 and what's a psychiatric problem, and he's trying to adjust 23 the medication as best he can. 24 Q. Another phone call on the 31st. It says, "Not 25 at home." Does it look like maybe Doctor Coleman is checking 46 1 himself as opposed to the patient phoning in? 2 A. Yes. Yeah. 3 Q. The next notation is 11-2-88. That's 4 additionally a phone call. "Dizziness and problems with 5 Desyrel. Plan, patient has appointment tomorrow. Stop meds 6 (Desyrel) for tonight." It's unclear as to whether or not 7 that phone call -- who initiated that phone call, isn't it? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Anything significant about that notation? 10 A. Well, again, the doctor and the patient are 11 communicating and the doctor is involved appropriately. 12 Q. The next notation is 11-3, the next day. "The 13 patient states that he took ampicillin that his wife had and 14 had a bad reaction. Felt Trazodone was helping him feel less 15 depressed prior to this without side effects." Now, is 16 Trazodone and Desyrel the same thing? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Was Trazodone increased at that time? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Didn't keep his appointment on the 1st -- on 21 December 1st, but saw him on December the 12th; is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What was the notation then? 24 A. "Patient feels mood slightly better. Now taking 25 500 milligrams of Desyrel every night. Sleep has improved 47 1 somewhat. Still on Lithobid 2 every morning and 2 at night. 2 Continue present meds. Return to clinic 1 month." 3 Q. Go back to the page in your packet that is a 4 list of -- a medications list. Do you see that? It's a 5 separate page? 6 A. I have it. 7 Q. On Exhibit 160, it would be the last two pages. 8 I see notations of Halcion and Restoril there. What are those 9 medications? 10 A. They're sleeping medications. 11 Q. All right. And does it appear that 12 Mr. Wesbecker was generally on hypnotics, sleeping medications 13 through most of this time that he was being treated by Doctor 14 Coleman? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. The next notation is January 9th, 1989. 17 JUDGE POTTER: I tell you what, Mr. Smith. 18 You've come to the end of a year and we're going to have to 19 take a break in the morning and this might be a good time to 20 do it. 21 MR. SMITH: Be fine. 22 JUDGE POTTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going 23 to remind you again, do not permit anybody to communicate with 24 you about this case; do not discuss it among yourselves, and 25 do not form or express opinions about it. We'll stand in 48 1 recess for 15 minutes. 2 (JURORS EXCUSED; BENCH DISCUSSION) 3 JUDGE POTTER: I'm assuming this is some 4 typed-up thing of his original notes? 5 MR. SMITH: Yes. What happened was -- and we'll 6 get this when we get Doctor Coleman -- Doctor Coleman made 7 handwritten notations and then more lengthy handwritten 8 notations and then had them typed up. 9 JUDGE POTTER: You might explain that to the 10 jury that you-all have agreed that Doctor Coleman -- because 11 it's obvious that something is going on. You don't write out 12 DNKA (Did not keep appointment). You might just explain that 13 to them when you start. 14 MR. SMITH: That was actually typed by Doctor 15 Coleman's office. 16 JUDGE POTTER: Just explain to them what it is; 17 that there are things in there that don't make sense, you 18 know, in his office notes. 19 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED; RECESS) 20 SHERIFF CECIL: The jury is now entering. All 21 jurors are present. Court is back in session. 22 JUDGE POTTER: Please be seated. 23 Doctor, I'll remind you you're still under oath. 24 Mr. Smith. 25 Q. Doctor Breggin, is it your understanding that 49 1 these notes that are in front of you are notes that have been 2 typed up by Doctor Coleman's office based on handwritten 3 notations that he's made -- that he made at the time? And if 4 there are some explanations, like on December 1st, 1988, we 5 see the word DNKA and then, paren, did not keep appointment, 6 close parens. That's probably something that the typist wrote 7 in to give an explanation as to what those initials mean; is 8 that right? 9 A. Yes. Thank you. 10 Q. Where were we, on November 3rd, 1988? Sound 11 reasonable? 12 A. Yeah. Uh-huh. 13 Q. It says, "Patient states he took ampicillin that 14 wife had and had a bad reaction. Felt Trazodone was helping 15 him feel less depressed prior to this without side effects. 16 Resumed Desyrel 300 milligrams at night." We've discussed 17 that, have we not? 18 A. I think so. 19 Q. December 1st, he didn't keep his appointment. 20 On December 12th, his mood was better. He was taking 500 21 milligrams of Desyrel at night and his sleep had improved; 22 correct? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. His mood was better on the 12th of December. 25 Then on January 9th says, "His mood was better but still some 50 1 nights having trouble sleeping. Less symptoms of floor 2 moving. Quite animated and talkative about problems with 3 lawsuit. Plan, try 600 milligrams Desyrel every day." Does 4 this finding of less symptoms of floor moving have any 5 significance to you, Doctor Breggin? 6 A. It sounds as if he's feeling better and that 7 that symptom is being reduced, that he's generally doing 8 better now that he's not working. 9 Q. It says also, though, that he's quite animated 10 and talkative about problems with lawsuit. What's your 11 understanding or do you have any knowledge in connection with 12 what that was? 13 A. I've been told it was an EEOC complaint, a 14 complaint about job discrimination based on his mental 15 illness. 16 Q. All right. We've had testimony concerning that. 17 And your understanding is that's what he was animated about? 18 A. Yeah. And it indicates he's feeling like maybe 19 he can get something done here. He's involved in having some 20 resolution of his problems with work. 21 Q. In your practice have you seen that that's 22 important in connection with individuals who have depression 23 and mood disorders of this nature, that if they can get 24 something done or resolved that that causes an improvement in 25 their symptoms? 51 1 A. Oh, very much so. I'm frequently saying to my 2 patients you need a project, and this is a project. It 3 matters to him. It's perhaps a part of his getting better. 4 He has this project but he's also no longer at work. 5 Q. On February 6, 1989, he came in. It says, 6 "Patient feels increase of Desyrel to 600 milligrams has not 7 helped any. Increase in visual illusion, although he 8 attributes this with argument with son. Continues to complain 9 of memory difficulty and loss of train of thought." What's 10 your impression of that notation, Doctor Breggin? 11 A. The fact that the visual illusions are 12 continuing and that he himself thinks they have something to 13 do with stress and conflict suggest they are psychiatric. 14 Continues to complain of concentration and memory difficulties 15 and loss of train of thought could be either his psychiatric 16 problem, the depression can do that to you, or it could be 17 lithium that can cause that. It could be both. This is 18 common in either case. I suspect, though, -- usually patients 19 on lithium don't make such a definitive statement like this; 20 it's usually a little more vague, the memory problems with 21 lithium, so I suspect it's probably a mood problem. 22 Q. The next is a phone call, says, "Patient saw 23 report on Halcion on TV and wants to switch. Will switch to 24 Restoril 15 milligrams at night as needed." And I believe the 25 medication chart will show that the Restoril came on board at 52 1 that time. 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. Was it appropriate to switch to Restoril at that 4 time? 5 A. Yes. Restoril is a much safer -- much, much 6 safer drug than Halcion and very appropriate to switch to it. 7 Q. Again, is the Halcion and the Restoril being 8 given for sleep as opposed to anxiety? 9 A. Yes. It's definitely being given for sleep. 10 Halcion, for example, has an extremely short half-life; it's 11 mostly gone by the morning. Restoril has a little bit longer 12 half-life of nine hours, but its effects are largely gone by 13 the morning and, as I mentioned I think earlier, it's been 14 marketed strictly as a sleeping pill. If you look into 15 textbooks they're likely to have it in a separate chapter 16 under sleeping medications, not under anxiolytic or 17 anti-anxiety medications. And most patients taking this drug 18 do not feel an effect from it when they get up in the morning; 19 that's the whole purpose of its being a sleeping medication, 20 so you can get up in the morning and drive to work and not be 21 in danger of being under the influence of the drug. 22 Q. I don't see any agitation or anxiety or anger 23 mentioned on the January 9th, 1989, notation nor do I see any 24 on the February 6, 1989, notation. Do you see any, Doctor 25 Breggin? 53 1 A. No. There's no mention of any symptoms like 2 that. 3 Q. On March 27th, 1989, he comes in reporting that 4 the, "Patient feels discontinue of Halcion has helped a lot, 5 feeling much better with improved mood, more active, less 6 upset by things. Tapered lithium to b.i.d., two a day, with 7 no reported ill effects. Patient would like to see how he 8 would do off of lithium. Talked about potential risks of 9 increased mood disturbance and patient willing to risk this." 10 Generally what does this say about Mr. Wesbecker's condition 11 in March of '89? 12 A. At this point when the Halcion has stopped, he 13 no longer talks about the room moving and about illusions, as 14 far as I can tell. And that makes me now wonder, as I'm going 15 through in his shoes, whether it was the Halcion. And Halcion 16 can cause a lot of mental problems. He feels better off of 17 the Halcion. 18 The tapering of the lithium, a doctor would do 19 that when he's feeling safer about his patient; this patient's 20 mood is stabilized. And he mentions to the patient that this 21 could mean that there will be more problems because we've 22 lowered your lithium, so be on the lookout for that, and he 23 instructs the patient to give a call if tapering this lithium 24 is proving a problem, if reducing the lithium is proving to be 25 a problem. 54 1 Q. And to return in two months? 2 A. That again indicates -- a doctor would not 3 likely do that if he thought his patient was in any trouble, 4 so things are looking better. 5 Q. And two months later he did see him on May 31st, 6 1989, with a notation, "Feeling more depressed. Decreased 7 sleep, decreased motivation and energy. More irritable. 8 Relates some of this to in-law problems and problems with 9 son." Correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is this unusual to see some changes in mood with 12 individuals with this type of illness? 13 A. No. This man really seems to have a kind of 14 baseline feeling depressed. 15 Q. All right. 16 A. That he is often just not feeling good. 17 Q. And his lithium level is checked and he's 18 getting more Desyrel, apparently? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. The next notation is June 26th, 1989. There 21 Doctor Coleman notes, "Patient's mood seems to have improved 22 but feeling drugged and lethargic. Still complains of memory 23 problems. Explained dilemma of need for medication to balance 24 mood versus side effects. Can try to decrease meds slightly. 25 Decrease Lithobid to two every morning and one at night. 55 1 Decrease Desyrel, Trazodone, to 500 milligrams at night." 2 Correct? 3 A. Yes. And then return to clinic in one month. 4 And it says last lithium level, one. 5 Q. Everything seem appropriate? 6 A. Yes. And he is still struggling with that 7 question of what is the drug effect versus what -- at least 8 the record indicates issues continuing of what's the drug 9 effect and what's the mood problem and he's trying to figure 10 that out. 11 Q. It looks like he missed his appointment on 12 August 3rd, 1989, but on August the 10th, 1989, reports the 13 following: "Patient relates change of meds no specific 14 benefit. Still has morning lethargy, trouble initiating sleep 15 and trouble with memory. Talked about whether to accept 16 present level or try something different. Talked about 17 possibility of benefits of Prozac and patient agreeable to 18 this. Most risk-free method seems to be to start this and 19 then gradually taper Trazodone. Plan, start Prozac 20 20 milligrams per day." Correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now, is there any mention here about anger, 23 agitation or irritability with Mr. Wesbecker? 24 A. No. I mean, it's been quite some time since 25 there's been any mention of anger over work. It's been 56 1 months. 2 Q. No mention in June, is there? 3 A. No. 4 Q. There's a mention in May of some irritability 5 but there's no mention of anger, is there? 6 A. No. 7 Q. In March there was no mention of irritation, 8 anger or hostility, was there? 9 A. No. 10 Q. There was no mention of hostility in February 11 of '89, however, it's clear he had an argument with his son; 12 correct? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. There's no mention of anger, hostility, or 15 irritation on June 9th, 1989, is there? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Back in December of 1988, is there any mention 18 of hostility, irritation or anger? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Is there any mention of hostility, agitation or 21 anger in November of 1988? 22 A. No. None on the phone calls, either. 23 Q. Is there any mention back in October of 1988 of 24 anger, irritation or hostility? 25 A. No. 57 1 Q. The word anger is mentioned a year earlier in 2 the September 7th, 1988 notation, is it not? 3 A. That's right. 4 Q. But there it says "focused on anger at work," 5 does it not? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Now, read the September 11th, 1989 notation. 8 A. September 11th, 1989, "Patient seems to have 9 deteriorated. Tangential thought. Weeping in session. 10 Increased level of agitation and anger. Question from Prozac. 11 Patient states he now, quote, remembers, end quote, sexual 12 abuse by co-workers and has called, quote, sex crimes 13 division, end quote, of police. Because of deterioration I 14 have encouraged patient to go into the hospital for 15 stabilization but he refused. Plan, discontinue Prozac, which 16 may be cause. Return to clinic, two weeks." 17 Q. What's your opinion, Doctor Breggin, about the 18 change in this man's condition since he began the Prozac? 19 A. It's an abrupt change. It takes place in less 20 than a month. It is a typical agitation reaction. It is 21 exactly what I documented for I guess more than a day as one 22 of the effects of Prozac, in fact, as the primary side-effect 23 constellation of Prozac starting with the animal research 24 through the very first Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies and right 25 on up. He also at this point would seem to be suffering from 58 1 a delusion, and Prozac can in the process of this 2 overstimulation produce psychosis; that's been recorded again 3 and again and is acknowledged in the labeling by the FDA. 4 He seems to be having a typical Prozac reaction. 5 We learned later that there was no report to the sex crimes 6 division and that there almost surely was never an incident of 7 sexual abuse by co-workers and definitely, in retrospect, this 8 becomes a delusion. Those are some of my general comments on 9 that. 10 Q. Is this, Doctor Breggin, a classic case of what 11 you've been describing for the last day and a half to us? 12 A. Oh, yes. It's as if I were reading from all 13 that other material I read to you earlier of the cases and the 14 reports and the evaluations. It just fits right smack in the 15 middle of it. 16 Q. All right. When you saw this notation in Doctor 17 Coleman's records when you first received Doctor Coleman's 18 records, did this cause alarm or concern for you, sir? 19 A. Well, it immediately implicated Prozac in the 20 events that followed three days later on the 14th. 21 Q. Do you have any -- 22 A. I went further than that. I mean, I didn't just 23 simply make the decision based on that but... 24 Q. But was it significant to you that Doctor 25 Coleman's records in fact demonstrated the same thing that you 59 1 had seen in your research in connection with this drug? 2 A. Well, it indicated, among other things, that he 3 was a good observer, clinically, we've seen. He's attentive, 4 he's paying a lot of attention to his patient and he makes 5 these observations based on that two years of clinical 6 experience that he's seen him; he bases it on a knowledge of 7 Prozac. He's used Prozac. He perfectly describes the 8 agitation syndrome, and he attributes it, saying "which may be 9 the cause." He certainly wouldn't have stopped the medication 10 if he thought it wasn't most probably the cause. 11 Q. Doctor Coleman's deposition has been taken in 12 this case and we expect that he will testify in this case, but 13 have you had the opportunity to read Doctor Coleman's 14 deposition to get details concerning these particular 15 notations, Doctor Breggin? 16 A. Yes, I have. 17 MR. FREEMAN: Your Honor, may we approach? 18 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 19 MR. FREEMAN: First of all, it's been 20 represented that Doctor Coleman himself is going to be here to 21 testify and you know your previous rulings about depositions. 22 Secondly of all, we object to any summary or conclusions from 23 the depositions of what he said without the specific language 24 being read, because to have him interpret like he's been 25 trying to do what's in Doctor Coleman's mind or interpret what 60 1 he's saying is totally inappropriate. Since the witness is 2 going to be here, we object to the references to it. 3 MR. SMITH: He's an expert and he's entitled to 4 testify concerning what his opinion is in connection with the 5 causation. 6 JUDGE POTTER: I think he can testify as to, you 7 know, what Doctor Coleman said, but he better be slam accurate 8 when he paraphrases or... 9 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 10 Q. In reviewing Doctor Coleman's deposition, it's 11 important to be 100-percent accurate. Do you have any 12 accurate quotations concerning what Doctor Coleman testified 13 concerning this last office visit? 14 A. Yes, sir; I do. Just happened to have my note 15 cards again. 16 Q. All right. What did Doctor Coleman -- what did 17 you find in Doctor Coleman's deposition that was significant 18 to you in understanding more completely these office 19 notations? 20 A. Actually, I looked at several depositions and 21 also his testimony. 22 Q. All right. What we're going to need is 23 quotations, if you have that, sir. 24 A. Sure. In the deposition of September 9th, '93, 25 in response to how he was on this visit compared to other 61 1 visits, quote, more anxious, end quote. Quote -- 2 MR. FREEMAN: What page was that on, please? 3 A. What I have here is Page 36 and following, 36 4 and following. 5 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Freeman, if you want him to 6 wait while you check, you can have him wait; otherwise, 7 Doctor, just be very careful you've got it right. 8 A. Okay. Quote, his emotions seem to be up and 9 down a lot. 10 MR. FREEMAN: What page reference is that, 11 please? 12 A. This is 36 and following. That's all I have 13 here. 14 MR. FREEMAN: We don't know what that means, 15 Judge. 16 A. It means the next few pages. 17 JUDGE POTTER: You want him to wait while you 18 confirm it, Mr. Smith, or not? 19 Q. Beg your pardon? 20 JUDGE POTTER: I'm sorry. Mr. Freeman, 21 Mr. Myers, do you want him to read his quotes and wait while 22 you find them or do you want to find them on the break? 23 MR. FREEMAN: We'll wait till the break. 24 Q. Do you have the deposition with you? 25 A. We probably do. I'll be happy to find it. 62 1 JUDGE POTTER: They'll check him on the break, 2 Mr. Smith. 3 Q. All right. Did you at least get further details 4 to confirm that what you had seen of this Prozac profile, what 5 you read here in these office notations were indeed the 6 observations of Doctor Coleman? 7 A. Yes. I have more quotes, some with exact page 8 numbers. 9 Q. Okay. If you'd give exact page numbers then. 10 Your Honor, is it appropriate for him to quote 11 exact page numbers at this time? 12 JUDGE POTTER: That's fine. That's fine. 13 A. In explaining that his sleep was worse than 14 ever, he said, quote, hardly any sleep last month. That's the 15 depo of April 16th, Page 134. Again he said, quote, 16 significantly more sleep problem, end quote. That's from the 17 inquest, Page 76. Then back to the deposition, quote, he 18 wasn't his normal self at the first -- 19 MR. FREEMAN: Which deposition? 20 A. The one I started to quote from, the 9-9-93. 21 Q. Have you got a page number for that next quote? 22 A. I have a page number for the very next quote 23 after it, and that means to me it's in the area. 24 Q. Okay. Unless you can give them a specific page 25 number for a specific quote, Doctor Breggin, right now just 63 1 give the quote if you've got an exact page number. 2 A. Okay. I have another quote, certainly at the 3 last session he was agitated, and my note says 72 ahead, so it 4 could be on 72 or the next page. 5 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Smith, maybe you 6 misunderstood my ruling. He can go ahead and read his quotes 7 and they'll check them on the break, and then if there's 8 something wrong they'll catch him on cross-examination. I may 9 not have made myself clear. 10 A. May I go back? 11 Q. Yeah. Go back and give us the exact quotes that 12 you wrote down. I assume you read through Doctor Coleman's 13 deposition and made notes? 14 A. Yes. Right. 15 Q. All right. 16 A. Well, we're going back to the September 9th, 17 1993 depo, and just to kind of get context, what I have is 18 that from the moment the patient came in, according to the 19 doctor, he was, quote, more anxious, end quote; his emotions 20 seemed to be up and down a lot. Sobbed. His voice was 21 louder, end quotes. Quote, get angry real quickly, end quote, 22 and then calm down. Quote, fairly labile, end quote. 23 Q. What's labile mean? 24 A. Emotionally up and down. Emotions not level. 25 And then I gave you the quotes, hardly any sleep last month. 64 1 That was on the depo of 4-16, Page 134. Significantly more 2 sleep problem, Inquest 76. And the sleep problem is very 3 important in terms of violence and agitation. 4 Then continuing now with the depo of 9-9-93, 5 quote, he wasn't his normal self at the first of the session. 6 Quote, he didn't look very calm, and then, quote, certainly at 7 the last session he was agitated, end quote. And that's where 8 it says 72 or ahead. He calls it deterioration. He describes 9 him as quote nervous, end quote. Quote, shaky or pacing more, 10 end quote. Then a lengthy quote, and it looks to me like Page 11 36, although it's written in pencil so that could be off. 12 MR. FREEMAN: Which deposition? 13 A. It would be the -- these are the basic notes are 14 from the 9-9-93 depo, and what I have here, quote, I knew that 15 Prozac in some people could cause nervousness, could cause 16 agitation, could cause sleep problems, plus I had started him 17 on it three or four weeks before; whereas, he had previously 18 been in and now he's deteriorated, period. When you start a 19 new medication and something different happens, you tend to 20 support that it's the medication that is causing -- and then I 21 can't read my next word -- within that period of time. 22 Causing it -- causing it within that period of time. So 23 that's what made me question, one, the constellation of 24 symptoms that I was observing and, two, that we had just 25 started it three or four weeks before, end quote. And then 65 1 I've got a 36 circled, which would suggest I went back to put 2 a page number in later. 3 Q. All right. 4 A. I have more. But only with quotes? 5 Q. Yeah. Only with quotes right now. 6 A. Quote, only two sessions that I remember him 7 pacing about and being agitated. He's referring to the very 8 first session and the very last. 9 MR. FREEMAN: What's the page number? 10 A. Seventy-two. Fairly agitated, it's a quote, 11 Page 90. Quote, in none of his suicide attempts had he 12 attempted to harm anybody else, to my knowledge, Page 73. 13 More notes here but without quotes. Quote, his primary 14 problem was a mood problem, end quote, Page 78. That's what I 15 have with the quotations. 16 Q. All right. Did generally your reading of Doctor 17 Coleman's deposition confirm that this constellation was 18 occurring as was written in Doctor Coleman's office notes? 19 A. Well, yes. Well, he's more specific in the 20 depositions. I mean, it comes out that this is clearly the 21 most agitated he's ever seen him. It's worse than the first 22 session. The sleep problem is worse than it's ever been; he's 23 pacing and so on. So the description of him, you know -- and 24 he suggests hospitalization, which is very key. It's the 25 first and only time he suggests hospitalization. 66 1 Q. You say that's the first and only time he ever 2 suggested hospitalization? 3 A. Yes. Uh-huh. I'm just kind of glancing at some 4 of my notes that weren't in quotes. But the overall 5 impression is of a definitive change. He's in a way the 6 doctor's never seen him before. It's more serious and 7 deteriorated in a way he's never seen him before. 8 Q. Does deterioration have any specific meaning 9 when written by a psychiatrist or is it just an ordinary, like 10 we all say, deterioration? 11 A. It's like we all say, but when a physician uses 12 that word it has a lot of punch. I mean, it's consistent with 13 something serious. It's a serious word to use. And he's 14 making absolutely clear this is basically new. He's seen a 15 little bit of it the first time he came in but this is new and 16 he was very, very concerned. He also said -- made an 17 appointment for two weeks. 18 Q. Is that significant? He had gone up to three 19 months without seeing him on previous occasions. 20 A. And he actually -- I recall from one of the 21 depositions he actually wanted it for one week and he wanted 22 him to come in with his ex-wife, and that is a whole break 23 with his practice previously. He's never said that before, 24 that I know of, that I know of. And she can't come in the 25 next week so he makes it for two weeks simply because she 67 1 can't come in right away, and he has not responded in that 2 fashion at any other time. 3 Q. You mean Doctor Coleman has not suggested that? 4 A. Has not; right. 5 Q. And he felt that the situation was perhaps less 6 serious just because it was caused by Prozac because he hoped 7 it would get -- 8 MR. FREEMAN: This is "he felt" again, Your 9 Honor. 10 DOCTOR BREGGIN: He said. 11 JUDGE POTTER: Why don't you stay out of Doctor 12 Coleman's head unless it's written down somewhere. 13 Q. Did you read testimony that would indicate 14 Doctor Coleman's reasoning for this way -- 15 MR. FREEMAN: Doctor Coleman it's been 16 represented is going to be here on behalf of the plaintiff. 17 A. I really mean said when I say felt, and I 18 apologize again for that. He said that he had hoped that the 19 patient would get better because he was stopping the Prozac. 20 So not only does he think Prozac is the cause, he thinks that 21 stopping the Prozac is going to help. So that's one of the 22 reasons why he felt a little secure even though the patient 23 did not want to go into the hospital. 24 Q. Okay. Did I interrupt you? Did you have 25 another thought? 68 1 A. Well, about the hospital, which is all part of 2 this package, he says that he didn't want to force him to go 3 into the hospital in part because he thought that would in 4 effect break rapport, it might make him feel distrustful of 5 him. And also I think he said he didn't meet the standard 6 for -- that he could tell -- for hospitalization. 7 Q. You mean involuntary hospitalization? 8 A. For involuntary hospitalization. But he did do 9 something that was significant and important, which was to 10 make a visit soon, to stop the Prozac and to get a family 11 member in. 12 Q. Okay. Tell us then, Doctor Breggin, how if 13 Doctor Coleman stopped the Prozac on September 11th, 1989, the 14 Prozac could cause conduct by Mr. Wesbecker on September 14th, 15 1989. 16 A. Well, there are two things to take into 17 consideration there. You remember I've talked to you about 18 these short half-lives of drugs? Lithium's half-life is a 19 day; Restoril is nine hours. The half-life of Prozac, 20 fluoxetine, and its metabolite, the medication that then 21 becomes in the system norfluoxetine, which is also active, 22 lasts half-life seven to nine days and, in addition, there has 23 been other literature that it may be longer, but that's long 24 enough for our case here, for our situation. So we can expect 25 him to be carrying a significant and therapeutic or 69 1 untherapeutic dose within his system of Prozac three days 2 later, even longer than that. 3 The other thing is that remember I talked about 4 the compensatory mechanisms and how the receptor for Prozac 5 die back or disappear, depending on your concept, when the -- 6 when the drug is present, that the receptors get flooded so 7 they go down in number. Now, if that happens and you've now 8 reduced your dose of Prozac a little, I mean, it's starting to 9 go down, the dose is going down but those receptors haven't 10 turned around yet; they haven't regenerated yet, if they're 11 ever going to regenerate. We have no studies on whether these 12 receptors regenerate. Lilly has done no studies on whether 13 these receptors ever, ever come back. 14 So we have a situation the blood level's going 15 down, the receptors are used to a higher blood level. 16 Theoretically, at least, we could be producing exactly the 17 situation that Lilly says causes violence and causes 18 impulsivity, which is a relatively sluggish system with the 19 Prozac diminishing in the blood and the receptor still 20 subsensitive, still diminished in number. That's a theory. 21 It conforms with what I have seen, which is, on stopping 22 Prozac, people sometimes get much worse in the first few days 23 afterward. But we don't need that explanation. I would class 24 that as one of the possibilities. The clear thing is he's got 25 a Prozac agitation during those days. 70 1 Q. All right. And do we also have blood work taken 2 at autopsy of Mr. Wesbecker that showed therapeutic levels, if 3 there is such a thing, of Prozac on board at the time? 4 A. Yes, we do. It's very clear that the 5 combination of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine which, remember, 6 is its long-acting metabolite, is 1,000 -- over 1,000 7 nanograms. 8 Q. All right. I don't think the jury has that 9 exhibit in front of them, so let's see if we can get it in 10 front of them. Is this the blood autopsy toxicology reports 11 that you reviewed -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- and that you're talking about, Doctor 14 Breggin? 15 A. Yes, sir. This is it. 16 MR. SMITH: We would offer Exhibit 161. 17 JUDGE POTTER: Be admitted. 18 Q. Wait until they've got that so they can follow 19 along with you. 20 SHERIFF CECIL: (Hands document to jurors). 21 MR. SMITH: May I approach the bench, Your 22 Honor? 23 JUDGE POTTER: Uh-huh. 24 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 25 MR. SMITH: We've got the jury's attention now 71 1 that we have the school kids out there. I just looked. 2 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 3 Q. All right. If you'll look at -- where are you 4 reading from on 161, where you have the report of Prozac, 5 Doctor Breggin? 6 A. It's about five lines down, and you see they 7 have given the blood level. 8 Q. Is that on the SmithKline-Beecham Science 9 Laboratories? 10 A. Yeah. SmithKline-Beecham Science Laboratories. 11 And if you go down, it says fluoxetine, Prozac, then it gives 12 you the concentration in the blood of the fluoxetine, 328; 13 then it gives you the concentration of the norfluoxetine, 764, 14 and it adds them together for us for a level of 1,092. Now, 15 on the other side is therapeutic range. That is this 16 laboratory's estimate of what an effective dose level is. And 17 the dose -- effective dose level that they suggest is 300 to 18 1,150. That would indicate that by this laboratory's standard 19 for their testing of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine, he is 20 actually at the high end of the therapeutic range, so he's 21 more than certainly under the influence of Prozac. He's 22 clearly, definitively, unequivocally under the influence of 23 Prozac on that third day at a rather intense level. 24 Q. And could he still have been under the influence 25 of Prozac on September 14th if he did indeed follow Doctor 72 1 Coleman's instructions and discontinue Prozac on September 2 11th? 3 A. Well, definitely, and I think that he did. I 4 again went and looked at the pill count as reported, and 5 according to my simple mathematical calculations, he took one 6 pill as directed every day until he was told to stop, and this 7 is entirely consistent with that. 8 Q. All right. Now, to be clear on what we're 9 looking at, Doctor Breggin, this was not a blood test Mr. 10 Wesbecker went in and got the morning before the shooting, is 11 it? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Is it, in fact, the coroner had an autopsy done 14 on Mr. Wesbecker after he committed suicide and these are 15 laboratory values done on blood that was collected at autopsy; 16 is that your understanding? 17 A. Yes. That's my understanding. 18 Q. All right. While we've got this in front of us, 19 let's go ahead and look at the rest of the medications that 20 were found in this particular laboratory analysis. Next it 21 says, "Miscellaneous test, Restoril, 240 nanograms per 22 millimeter; is that right? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. Now, that's a sleeping medicine; right? 25 A. That's right. 73 1 Q. And what is the normal therapeutic range? 2 A. Well, for this laboratory it's 50 to 1,000, 3 which would indicate that this is in the low range, and it's 4 what we'd expect in the morning. 5 Q. There has been a lot of testimony in connection 6 with the use of benzodiazepines in the clinical trials to 7 reduce anxiety. There has been a lot of testimony concerning 8 the recommendation of the BGA that sedatives should be 9 considered in individuals at risk of excitability or 10 violent-aggressive behavior or suicidality. Is this a 11 reflection that Mr. Wesbecker was indeed being sedated as was 12 being obtained in the Prozac clinical trials and recommended 13 by the German government? 14 A. No. Absolutely not. And there's a way to be 15 very specific that this is not what's meant in the trials by 16 giving benzodiazepines for the control of agitation, because 17 the trials allow for two separate uses of medication, one is 18 the sleeping medication to be given at night, and it's 19 specified chloral hydrate at night or sleeping medication at 20 night. But then along comes a separate -- a separate 21 allowance and the separate allowance is for the use for 22 agitation, and that means a daytime daily use. This drug is 23 mostly working while he's sleeping and is -- definitely you do 24 not give Restoril at night to help a person with anxiety 25 throughout the day, absolutely, unequivocally not. 74 1 Q. All right. The next value we have is Trazodone, 2 and does that little arrow that way mean less than 25? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Less than 25? What's UG? 5 A. I'm not sure. It's not nanograms. I'm not 6 sure. But they're obviously trying to indicate a very small 7 amount, less than trace. 8 Q. All right. In the right-hand corner -- 9 right-hand under the reference range it has 400 to 1,100 as 10 being therapeutic? 11 A. Yeah. I think the point here is that these were 12 really not measurable, that the drug is present, it's less 13 than these minute amounts. It's not even saying trace. If 14 some is found, in my experience, the lab says trace, trace 15 less than this amount. But in this case they're saying that 16 it's less than a very small amount, could be none. 17 Q. Could it be that -- and I think there may be 18 testimony -- we know that Doctor Coleman had prescribed these 19 medications over the last few years. We know there was an 20 investigation by the police and that pills -- pill bottles and 21 pills were found at his home. Could it have been that the 22 police or the coroner specifically that requested this lab to 23 perform these tests and they're simply telling us they checked 24 for these particular medications? 25 A. I think that's clearly what happened because you 75 1 wouldn't usually just get a list like this and then that none 2 basically were detectable. 3 Q. All right. And the same then for Trazodone, 4 imipramine, desipramine and nortriptyline; is that right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And is nortriptyline actually a metabolite or is 7 that a separate medication? 8 A. It's both. It can be either one. 9 Q. All right. If you turn to the page that says 10 toxicology sheet of Joseph Wesbecker where it's typed there, 11 do you see that? 12 A. Yes. Uh-huh. 13 Q. What does that tell us about -- was this a 14 separate test potentially that was run, or is this just a -- 15 A. This is summary. 16 Q. This is summary. Okay. Down there there's 17 blood and it says "Frankfort results." 18 A. We also now get to know what their U stands for. 19 It's micrograms -- milligrams. Go ahead. Yes. 20 Q. Can we say that this page of Exhibit 161 -- 21 A. This is a summary of the other. 22 Q. All right. But then it says, "Blood, Frankfort 23 results," obviously that's a different test? 24 A. Well, yes. It says here, "Insufficient sample 25 to test for, among other things, lithium," which they were 76 1 concerned about so they sent it out to another lab that could 2 test for lithium. They got that therapeutic level of one, 3 which is exactly what you'd expect that morning from his 4 previous experience, particularly if he didn't take his pill 5 in the morning, or even if he did. It might not at that point 6 have elevated it. So that's your normal lithium level. It's 7 got salicylates for pain and no temazepam, the Restoril is 8 described as trace. So they're getting trace and the other 9 lab is getting low therapeutic range. This is what you'd 10 expect the next day. 11 Q. Can you conclude from that, Doctor Breggin, that 12 on September 14th, 1989, there were no medications affecting 13 Joseph Wesbecker other than Prozac? 14 A. No. Prozac and lithium. 15 Q. All right. Did the lithium in your opinion have 16 any effect on this -- Mr. Wesbecker's conduct? 17 A. Well, it may have helped him some with the 18 control by narrowing his emotional range. There is some hope 19 that lithium can sometimes control aggressivity, but it's not 20 FDA recommended for that and there's no real study to confirm 21 it would. And we've already seen cases where people have 22 gotten violent on Prozac with lithium. I think the lithium is 23 not playing a substantial role in the problem either way here, 24 although it might have been helping him, if anything, control 25 his impulses being exaggerated by the Prozac, but clearly the 77 1 Prozac breaks through. I would say the lithium is not of 2 substantial importance here, whereas the Prozac is of very 3 substantial cause and importance. 4 Q. All right. I have before me I think the 5 totality of Mr. Wesbecker's medical records that included his 6 three hospitalizations and his treatment by other 7 psychiatrists; correct? Have you reviewed something similar 8 to this? 9 A. Yeah. Yeah. 10 Q. Tell us -- instead of going by that page by 11 page, tell us generally what your recollection is concerning 12 incidences of violence, incidences that would flag a situation 13 that in the medical records would cause some concern about 14 whether or not Joseph Wesbecker had violent propensity that 15 was going to come through regardless of his ingestion of 16 Prozac. 17 A. Well, I wouldn't -- I'm not sure what you're 18 saying, but I don't think that anything here indicates that it 19 would come through regardless of Prozac. In fact, it seems 20 like treatment always helps him. I mean, he gets very upset 21 and then treatment helps him. The Our Lady of Peace admission 22 of April 16th, 1984, was a seven-day admission. That 23 automatically tells you that he was getting under control. 24 Q. What was the date of that, Doctor Breggin? 25 A. April 16th to April 23rd, '84. He does leave -- 78 1 against the doctor's advice he leaves earlier than they want, 2 but they don't commit him. 3 MR. FREEMAN: Here we go again, Your Honor. 4 MR. SMITH: We object to that side bar remark, 5 Judge. 6 JUDGE POTTER: I assume the record says what it 7 says, but the objection is overruled. 8 A. It says AMA, against medical advice. 9 Q. Does that mean that this gentleman is going to 10 go out and shoot 20 people that he leaves against medical 11 advice? 12 A. No. It's fairly common in psychiatry -- not in 13 medicine, but common in psychiatry, and once you're in a 14 mental hospital it is very easy to hold somebody; it is not 15 like outside of a mental hospital. You can get a few-day hold 16 and commit somebody if you think they're dangerous, and they 17 didn't do that. And here they -- he has -- he's come in 18 because according to them he has had an overdose. They see 19 him as having a major affective disorder. They see him as 20 angry and bitter. They do a work-up. In the beginning, 21 quote, admits to homicidal thoughts toward wife's ex-husband. 22 Thought of blowing his brains out, but he always has a witness 23 with him. 24 Q. You mean Mr. Wesbecker or the ex-wife's husband? 25 A. I guess the ex-wife's husband. He's described 79 1 as agitated and tense. 2 Q. Did you note the nurse's notations the next two 3 days following that, where the nurse indicated no homicidal 4 ideations present? 5 A. Yeah. I have a specific quote, not voicing any 6 homicidal thoughts, and then the doctor repeats that. So at 7 the time it's very short lived in the hospital, and then he is 8 discharged quicker than they would like; that's what AMA 9 means. 10 Q. All right. Any other notations from any 11 hospitalizations do you think are significant in giving the 12 jury a better picture and a full picture concerning Mr. 13 Wesbecker's condition and whether or not he made any threats 14 of homicide or things of that nature? 15 A. He again had problems in '87, a second 16 hospitalization, and during that time he is described again 17 as -- described as having ineffective coping exhibited by 18 suicide attempt and homicidal thoughts. And his thoughts are 19 about hurting his foreman, and there's a number of notes about 20 that. And then again by the time of discharge he is no longer 21 suicidal/homicidal. So he does have two times when he 22 explicitly talks about having homicidal impulses. He tells 23 the doctors. He gets treatment. The hospitalizations are 24 relatively short. 25 Q. Well, one is about a month, isn't it? 80 1 A. Yeah. The second one is a little longer. A 2 month is typical. Very often insurance covers for a month; 3 that's a typical psychiatric hospitalization, and he's treated 4 and he does better. So here's a man who struggles when he's 5 in situations that are very provocative to him, when things 6 are going badly for him. In '84, it's around his wife and, as 7 so many men do, he gets into some sort of emotional state 8 about the other man, about her ex-husband, and not so 9 infrequently has really violent impulses toward the other man. 10 It's fairly common under these kind of situations. You see it 11 so often. I do a lot of divorced people. A lot of people I 12 try to help them keep their marriages together. I do a lot of 13 conflict resolution with families. And it's sad to say that 14 it's awfully frequent that they come in and the wife says, "He 15 threatened to kill me. He hit me." There's no hitting here. 16 I can't tell you how often -- I work, as I said, 17 with a lot of couples -- that he hits; that he threatens; he 18 pushes; he shoves. In this case, he does make threatening 19 statements, and then when he comes in feeling enormously under 20 pressure from work he again makes threatening statements. And 21 I think those are scarier because they're not in the usual 22 context of marital conflict where these things often develop. 23 And he actually brings a gun into work -- sometime to work, I 24 don't know when -- I think, according to James Lucas, where he 25 brings a gun into work and he's making threatening statements 81 1 but he does nothing. In fact, the only evidence we have -- 2 maybe I can go over what evidence we have from any kind of 3 violence. 4 Q. Let's do that in a minute. But up to now from 5 what you've told us, what kind of evidence do you have 6 concerning Mr. Wesbecker's impulse control and his impulsivity 7 generally? 8 A. Well, he at times of crisis struggles with 9 getting very angry and retaliatory. He gets help. He knows 10 that he's doing these things. He gets help, he does better 11 and he maintains control. 12 Q. All right. And there has been testimony in this 13 case -- I don't know if you've seen it -- but Sue Chesser, 14 Mr. Wesbecker's first wife, has indicated that he hit her on 15 one or two occasions, probably twice, I believe she testified 16 in her deposition. Did you review her deposition? You 17 said -- when you were saying there was no actual hitting, you 18 may have been talking about at that particular time related to 19 the hospital records, but I don't want to leave the impression 20 that you're under the impression that he never hit Ms. 21 Chesser. 22 A. No. He did strike her twice. She was not, as I 23 recall, damaged. It was not the kind of violence that I too 24 often see men inflicting on women, although anything is 25 inexcusable. I say to all the couples, "You can never touch 82 1 her in anger. That's it. It ends. It stops. Now we can 2 talk about what you can do to empower yourself to communicate 3 with your wife, but you must never touch her in anger." So 4 I'm very, very serious to communicate that, but it's still not 5 a massive attack. And that's the only documented times. 6 There were some spanks. He apparently spanked 7 the kids, but his wives have not described them as out of 8 control or wild-eyed or inappropriate. And then there is an 9 incident where he actually goes to prison for a short period 10 of time I think I was told in this building as a youngster, as 11 a child. 12 Q. Sixteen or seventeen when he was incarcerated. 13 And the amount of time and the specific charge is in issue, 14 but he was seventeen years old then. 15 A. And at that point, apparently I've read the 16 evidence we have on that, which is the deposition of a man who 17 was actually involved in this incident with him, and then 18 there's a deposition of a woman who heard about the incident. 19 And is the man named Conn? I think I'm off a little bit on 20 that. 21 Q. I believe so. 22 A. He says that what happened was not a rape, that 23 two young girls, to join a club, had to -- as disgraceful as 24 this sounds, had to submit to sex with some of the boys; that 25 Wesbecker was not involved; that he was there but was not 83 1 involved; and that while -- I think it was Conn himself owned 2 a broken starter pistol, and it was left in the car. The 3 woman's testimony, but she was not there, was that the broken 4 starter pistol was held by Mr. Wesbecker. Neither of them say 5 he raped anyone. 6 MR. FREEMAN: Yes. Would you have the witness 7 identify the woman, please? 8 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Smith, you need to have the 9 Witness identify the source. 10 A. Yes. It skipped my mind. Rebecca Blossom and 11 the man is Conn, C-O-N-N. 12 Q. All right. All right. Let's see if we can get 13 this, if I can find my notes, in some kind of chronological 14 order. We've covered the hospital records and the review of 15 the psychiatric treatment; is that right? 16 A. Yes. Yes. There was no suggestion of violence, 17 as I recall, in the first hospitalization, but there was in 18 the second and third of feelings of violence, not of actions. 19 Q. All right. There has been testimony concerning 20 the childhood background that contributed to the shooting on 21 September 14th, 1989. Do you have an opinion concerning 22 whether or not that was a substantial factor, any factor or 23 had any bearing in connection with Mr. Wesbecker's conduct on 24 September 14th? 25 A. Well, Mr. Wesbecker had a depressing childhood. 84 1 It's the kind of childhood I see again and again and again in 2 my depressed patients. He has major losses. Loses his father 3 when he's only one. While that may not affect him so much 4 directly, it profoundly, of course, affects his wife -- his 5 mother, Mr. Wesbecker's mother. It affects his whole 6 environment. 7 Then there are some grandparents are lost and 8 that, again, is not going to maybe affect him directly, but 9 certainly affects his environment, even ends up, as I 10 mentioned, in an orphanage for a while. It is the kind of 11 background that I see day in and day out in my practice. 12 Certainly not one of the extreme ones and, as I mentioned, it 13 doesn't have a lot of violence in it. We have a couple of 14 spankings described. 15 Q. I guess, are you just picturing Wuthering 16 Heights or something in connection with this young man, with 17 Joseph Wesbecker? Was there no happiness in his life, was 18 there no interchange and love among his peers and the people 19 that were around him? 20 A. He definitely was surrounded by family. He had 21 a close attachment with his grandmother who I think she dies, 22 what, on August 8th on the year of the tragedy? He has his 23 grandmother; his mother is in and out. There are uncles 24 present; there are other children present. It is not a 25 completely isolated childhood, and it's not a childhood where 85 1 you're seeing him being trained and pushed, as so many young 2 people nowadays are, toward violence when he grows up. It's 3 really -- it's a sad childhood. It certainly has sadness and 4 loss in it. His mother sounds like she's very stressed and I 5 guess -- and he later removes himself from her, which is not 6 unusual when the man has gone through a childhood where the 7 mother has seemingly not been there for him the way the 8 grandmother was. He's just not close to his mother. You 9 can't look at this childhood and say this is the profile of a 10 violent person. 11 Q. All right. Would it surprise you that family 12 members have testified in this courtroom, Doctor Breggin, that 13 there were happy times; that there was love within the family 14 and that there was a lot of normalcy within the family? 15 A. No. I can't tell that from the record because 16 the record that I have is largely a psychiatric record and 17 you've just noticed how I do that; we look at the negative 18 things and pull them out and try to evaluate them. But it 19 would not surprise me, no, especially since he had family. He 20 did have family. 21 Q. There's going to be an argument here that 22 Mr. Wesbecker's violence on September 14th, 1989, was a 23 combination of a lot of things, including his childhood. One 24 thing that's been pointed out is that he hit his first wife 25 twice and threatened the ex-husband of his second wife. We've 86 1 mentioned that. These threats and assaults occurred in the 2 mid '80s, not in '89, not in '88, not in '87. Anything about 3 that that strikes you as being a definite predictor that this 4 man is going to commit this act on September 14, 1989? 5 A. No. I think the predictor is that he tends to 6 get help when he's feeling out of control. When he's feeling 7 out of control, he has in the past sought help and there have 8 been times of very, very major stress. Remember, '84 is a -- 9 the '80 hospitalization surrounds a separation and divorce. 10 The '84 hospitalization surrounds a hospitalization and 11 divorce. The '87 surrounds the crisis at work, which results 12 in '88, in his going on permanent disability, relieving that 13 particular stress. 14 Q. All right. There has been much made in this 15 case, at least so far, that Joseph Wesbecker was bound to do 16 this because he was estranged from his mother and one of his 17 sons, Kevin. Does that in your opinion mean that Joseph 18 Wesbecker was bound to do what he did on September 14th, 1989? 19 A. Well, definitely not, and it's not entirely 20 accurate. He was estranged from his mother, but he was 21 estranged from her it sounds like most likely in childhood. I 22 mean, we learn that the grandmother was in many ways the 23 caretaking figure and there were other people around. 24 He was not estranged from either of his sons at 25 the time. In fact, at the time of the tragedy he has 87 1 reconciled with Kevin; they've seen each other a few times; 2 things are even there. He's very close to James, right up to 3 the tragedy. He's taking James back and forth and he is 4 talking to him about life and he even knows that James has 5 just gotten into college just days beforehand. James has 6 gotten into college; his father is very pleased, looks kind of 7 high, according to James. 8 And I want to get into the other observers at 9 some point other than just Doctor Coleman, but he's no longer 10 at work; he doesn't have that stress. He has remarkably good 11 relationships with his ex-wives. This is not a crazy man who 12 can't relate to people. Having relationships with ex-wives in 13 our society is extremely difficult. He talks to Sue about the 14 kids. He and Sue go together to try to help James out. 15 With his second wife, Brenda, he is back with 16 her. They sleep in the same house a great deal of the time at 17 her demand, insistence, it said, he has actually given her 18 their former home and it's being worked on. You know, the 19 utilities have been turned off; he's basically not living 20 there; he's basically living with Brenda and he's fixing that 21 house up. So, I mean, he's got relationships going and he 22 doesn't have a significant major stressor then. 23 As you look at the record, the only possible one 24 is the death of his mom in early August -- his grandmom, but 25 that's a natural life process. That's an elderly person 88 1 dying. That's a natural life process. There's no indication 2 from any of the depositions that that was a catastrophic event 3 for him. 4 Q. Let me interrupt you and ask you because much 5 has been made of the stress that Mr. Wesbecker felt as a 6 result of this problem that Jimmy had in exposure. Can you 7 address that? Obviously, it would be stressful to any of us. 8 And give us your opinion concerning whether or not the stress 9 of Jimmy is what caused Mr. Wesbecker to do what he did. 10 A. Well, again, in my practice I work with a lot of 11 families and upset teenagers, and now he's older. And I think 12 one of the most important things is that Mr. Wesbecker is 13 really, really trying to relate to his son. Now, he's got a 14 son that a lot of parents would have said, "You're too 15 humiliating to me. Out of here. I mean, one more time you 16 expose yourself, one more time you go to jail or one more time 17 you do something like that and I'm done with you." He doesn't 18 do this. He's remarkable in his consistent support of that 19 son, and he also willingly does begin to get back together 20 with Kevin, with whom he has had a lot of conflict. 21 At the time of the shootings and the suicide, at 22 the time of the violence he has a good relationship with 23 James. James is doing better as far as I can tell than he's 24 ever done; just gotten into school, Dad's pleased for him, 25 he's pleased for Dad. I don't think at that moment James 89 1 still is a stress; James seems to be a joy at that moment. 2 They're talking, Mr. Wesbecker is opening up about his 3 childhood, and he's driving him back and forth. I think it's 4 work or school -- he drives him to school in the morning and 5 picks him up in the afternoon. 6 This is a very involved, concerned parent. He 7 feels he has a very vulnerable child who feels he has 8 inherited some of his problems. At that moment, he's a 9 connection, not a stressor, and a very meaningful connection. 10 And I think Kevin is not a very big connection, but is the 11 beginning of something better going on. 12 Q. Well, could we say at worst that this stress 13 that Jimmy was presenting was no different from the stress 14 that Jimmy had presented for Mr. Wesbecker for years? 15 A. Well, going all the way back to when Jimmy was a 16 boy, but I think it seems -- things seem to be better, 17 actually, at this moment. Now, how long that's going to last, 18 who knows, because this is a very, very troubled boy, but at 19 that moment things are better. 20 Q. All right. The testimony in this case has or 21 will indicate, and I think you may have reviewed records that 22 indicate that Mr. Wesbecker transferred his house to his 23 wife's name. Anything about that that indicates to you, in 24 your opinion, Doctor Breggin, whether or not this means that 25 Mr. Wesbecker is planning to do what he did on September 14th, 90 1 1989? 2 A. No. There is testimony that he did this at her 3 request. 4 Q. All right. There's testimony that Mr. Wesbecker 5 had written a will and in fact provided for his burial. Does 6 that indicate to you, based on your experience and based on 7 the review of the materials you reviewed, that Mr. Wesbecker 8 is planning for this event that occurred on September 14th, 9 1989? 10 A. Well, it clearly worries. If I was his treating 11 physician and I heard that he was at this moment planning his 12 burial, I would be worried. I'd want to know whether he 13 thought he was going to be killed, whether he thought 14 something horrible was going to happen to him or whether he 15 was feeling suicidal. It's certainly a concern. It makes one 16 wonder if he was struggling with some impulses that were self 17 destructive or if, on the other hand, he was feeling very 18 vulnerable, like somebody might hurt him. But certainly it 19 gives you a sense of this man is considering his mortality at 20 the time. 21 Q. All right. Now, have you reviewed material 22 concerning the threats that Mr. Wesbecker made against 23 Standard Gravure or individuals at Standard Gravure and job 24 stress that he had? 25 A. Yes, I have. 91 1 Q. All right. Would you capsulize what you 2 consider significant and important about that? 3 A. Well, I think the most important thing is that 4 hospitalization. That seems to be in '87 when he was most 5 upset. It's prior to his getting his full-time disability and 6 his taking -- 7 Q. Well, the testimony is not clear as to whether 8 or not this incident where the gun was taken on the premises 9 occurred before or after he was in Our Lady of Peace in 1986. 10 I think the testimony will be or has been that he was 11 either -- it was right in there sometime. 12 A. Yes. That's what I recall, which would still 13 most likely place it before he has a permanent disability. In 14 fact, we know it's before permanent disability because he's 15 going to work. He's carrying a gun to work. So all of 16 that -- the really serious clearly documented threats, not the 17 ones that somebody remembers in retrospect -- and we could 18 perhaps talk about remembering in retrospect when a tragedy 19 happens. But the clearly documented ones, or most of the ones 20 I've seen, at least, are prior to his going on disability. 21 And then we see the change right in the record 22 of Doctor Coleman, that after he's no longer working he is no 23 longer preoccupied with -- there's one session where he's 24 focused on anger and then he's no longer preoccupied with the 25 anger that has preoccupied him. That makes sense. 92 1 Q. But he obviously got reoccupied with it? 2 A. He obviously got reoccupied with it. 3 Q. What evidence did you review concerning that? 4 And I'm talking specifically about the deposition of 5 Mr. Lucas. 6 A. Mr. Lucas mentions that he was having what 7 Mr. Lucas thought was sort of a fantasy about sending some 8 bombs into work on an airplane. There were some references 9 like that that at least Mr. Lucas mentions; they're not 10 documented elsewhere. And he may very well have done that. 11 He did have periods when he was feeling angry about work, 12 where he had these fantasies. Always under control. Always 13 under control. 14 Q. Okay. Now, go from that to those conversations 15 with James Lucas after he got Prozac until August of 1989. 16 A. Well, could I back up? Is that permissible? 17 Q. Sure. 18 A. I mean, we do have the very serious question of 19 his buying guns. 20 Q. All right. 21 A. And I would place that in that period of time. 22 Q. You want to go to the guns before -- 23 A. We can go back to that later, if you want. 24 Q. All right. What's your understanding as to -- 25 does this cause you pause to reflect whether or not the 93 1 purchase of these guns, and guns of this nature, indicates a 2 plan long before Prozac to do what was done? 3 A. Well, in the year before he goes on Prozac, he 4 buys a series of guns that escalate into assault weapons. 5 This is serious. I'm sure if Doctor Coleman -- well, I can't 6 do that. I would have been very concerned if I had heard this 7 as a psychiatrist. I would have been very, very concerned. 8 This is a real issue. Now, he takes the guns out, the AK-47. 9 He finaly ends up trading in one level of AK-47 for apparently 10 the super model AK-47. What does he do with it? He goes out 11 and he shoots off a lot of rounds. Sometimes he actually 12 takes his wife, ex-wife Brenda, with him and they shoot 13 together. 14 Q. You mean at the target range? 15 A. Shoots off. What is he doing during that period 16 of time? It's hard to get into his head. I think what he's 17 trying to do as he has always done is handle his feeling of 18 anger, his feeling of vulnerability. He's doing it while 19 being armed, he's doing it by having a gun, but he's handling 20 it in a conventional, acceptable manner. But it is very 21 worrisome that he would escalate like this, and it leads you 22 to suspect that he's wrestling with some sort of possibility 23 of doing something, but he handles it conventionally. 24 And then on his last outing, the gun jams. It's 25 dirty, it's been used to shoot off -- I've heard an estimate 94 1 of a lot of rounds, I don't remember what, at the range. He 2 does not fix the gun. He does not fix the gun until he takes 3 Prozac. Then in that agitated state he goes and he gets his 4 gun repaired. 5 Q. And what's the significance of that? 6 A. I think that he was struggling with his 7 impulses. He may have not just felt violent, he may have felt 8 vulnerable. People buy a lot of guns when they feel 9 vulnerable. But this is scary. This is a signal. This is a 10 danger signal. He handles the danger signal. When the gun 11 wears out, he forgets it. Then this man, who has been 12 struggling on and on with his life because of impulse control, 13 but he has no major huge stressors at the moment, takes 14 Prozac, gets agitated and loses control of the impulses that 15 he has struggled with on and off since at least '84. 16 Q. All right. Does the fact that the guns were 17 bought in February and not used actually for any assaultive 18 purposes until September when he got Prozac tell you anything 19 about his impulse control? 20 A. Well, again, I mean, the man clearly struggled 21 with impulse. The man clearly had issues with violence, 22 self-protection, violence, vulnerability going on in his head. 23 Clearly he did. Now, it's interesting he didn't tell Doctor 24 Coleman, there's no note in the record about that. That leads 25 me to think that he didn't think it was a problem. You know, 95 1 he thinks he's taking care of himself. He thinks he's feeling 2 stronger, feeling better. Goes out with his wife, goes out by 3 himself, shoots a gun. He's a man, he's feeling on top of 4 things. I think that's why he doesn't come into the doctor 5 and say, "Hey, Doctor, I'm buying guns." He thinks this is 6 his way of feeling stronger, feeling safe. 7 Q. But up until that time he's using guns which are 8 legal, in a legal manner, in an appropriate manner; correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. At the time that this occurred after the 11 incident that day on September 14th, 1989, it's alleged that a 12 Time Magazine article was found that was dated February 1989, 13 concerning violence in America and that it was found turned to 14 a particular discussion or article concerning the massacre in 15 Stockton, California. Does that cause you concern? 16 A. I don't think that in itself is too meaningful. 17 I think he may have -- I mean, we have to try to reconstruct 18 and we're not in a great position to do that, but he may have 19 read it in February when he started to buy some guns, when he 20 was buying guns. He may have been struggling with that whole 21 issue. He may have been feeling vulnerable. People who kill 22 feel vulnerable. He may have been frightened. All we know is 23 when he's on Prozac, we don't know what he did in the 24 intervening time. And he could be agitated that it reappears. 25 I mean, it's hard to know what the particular importance of it 96 1 is. 2 Q. All right. What else do we have concerning Mr. 3 Wesbecker's threats after he goes on Prozac? 4 A. Well, in the period after he goes on Prozac, a 5 whole bunch of things happen. Let me try to deal with it as a 6 package, if I may. Because what I was interested in was 7 trying to see if there was a change in him from the 8 medication, as Doctor Coleman clearly thinks there is. Now, 9 he's in the best position -- 10 MR. FREEMAN: Your Honor. "Doctor Coleman 11 thinks there is." 12 JUDGE POTTER: It's a lead-in. Go ahead, sir. 13 A. So what I wanted to do is see what the other 14 people around him, what their observations were. Brenda was 15 interviewed by at least two police persons the day of the 16 shooting, so she hasn't had time to do a retrospective, 17 presumably, where she's going to think back and what was the 18 role of the drug and what was the role of this or that. And 19 she is questioned and says clearly that there's been a change 20 in him since the drug started. Quote -- this is what she's 21 telling to a police officer who is recording it. It's 22 Sergeant Gene Bodner, and this is on Page 7 and 8 and then on 23 Page 9, and it's from the police report. "She stated they 24 sleep in separate rooms because of Joe's mental condition, and 25 the medicine that he takes causes him to be fidgety and 97 1 occasionally gets up in the middle of the night and walks 2 around before he can go back to sleep. She said that because 3 of this they slept in separate bedrooms in separate beds." 4 Then on another page, "I asked her to be more 5 specific as far as the events of the last 24 hours, and she 6 stated as previously reported to the undersigned, Joe's 7 medicine caused him to be extremely fidgety and that she had 8 many times asked him to go back to the doctor and see if he 9 could not get his medication changed." 10 Now, remember -- I don't think I've told you 11 this -- in the deposition of Doctor Coleman, Mr. Wesbecker 12 thought Prozac was helping him and, precisely, that it had 13 helped him remember the sex abuse, which I think is in effect 14 saying that the medicine made him deluded, made him think he 15 remembered the sex abuse, but he being deluded about it thinks 16 it's positive. 17 Q. You mean Wesbecker, in talking with Doctor 18 Coleman, said Prozac has caused me to remember this incident 19 involving the alleged sex that occurred on the job? 20 A. Yes. And thinking that that was helpful. I 21 have seen this again and again with people taking Prozac. 22 They think they're better than ever when they're worse. It's 23 common with all stimulant profile medications. The person's 24 judgment is gone. 25 But at any rate, she is describing either 98 1 agitation or akathisia. You remember that I gave you the 2 evidence that akathisia directly causes violence and 3 aggression. It's built into the diagnostic manual, the most 4 recent edition. It's been admitted to by at least one of the 5 experts for Lilly. Akathisia can cause violence. This can be 6 akathisia, that is, hyperactivity driven by medication. It's 7 hard whether to tell if it's that or agitation driven by the 8 medication. But clearly here -- interestingly enough, not in 9 her later retrospective -- in her later retrospective where 10 she's being interviewed for deposition, this data does not 11 come out, as I recall, but here it is fresh. The policeman 12 certainly is not suspecting Prozac, Brenda is not suspecting 13 Prozac, but out it comes that he's been different, that he's 14 been either agitated or suffering from akathisia. 15 A. This has been confirmed by Detective Cheryl 16 Jackman, again, the exact same circumstances in an interview 17 on that day before the pieces have fallen into place or 18 there's been any discussion of the role of Prozac. This is 19 the detective speaking at the inquisition. The night 20 immediately before the incident at Standard Gravure, there 21 were, in her opinion, nothing that set it aside from anything 22 else; that his medication, according to her, was causing him 23 to be fidgety and he walked a considerable amount during the 24 nighttime hours. Consequently, they slept in separate beds 25 because he kept her awake by getting up and pacing. And the 99 1 night before he did the same thing, paced. 2 So we have the same description from Doctor 3 Coleman or very similar description now being confirmed 4 spontaneously. She makes such a direct connection. It's in 5 the same sentence that nothing that set it aside from anything 6 else; that his medication, according to her, caused him to be 7 fidgety. She's also confirming that she doesn't see at that 8 moment any particular stressor. 9 Then we go to James Wesbecker's testimony. 10 This -- well, let me do the contemporaneous instead. For 11 three Saturdays -- because what I want to try to get at is the 12 contemporaneous descriptions. For three Saturdays prior to 13 the tragedy, Joseph Wesbecker sees his friend Jim. 14 Q. Jim Lucas? 15 A. Jim Lucas. And there is, each time, frightening 16 developments that suggest that this man is building up to 17 violence. 18 Q. All right. Now, is he on Prozac at this time? 19 A. He is on Prozac. He's on Prozac, and Jim Lucas 20 attributes it to Prozac. And his wife has not a great deal of 21 detail in it, but his wife is keeping a record for other 22 purposes in a diary, and she does mention the visits and she 23 does mention the deterioration during this time. And I think 24 she specifically, as I recall, says the last three Saturdays. 25 Maybe that was in her deposition. So we do have the diary 100 1 confirming what Mr. Lucas is saying that there was 2 deterioration and then making plans, making statements that 3 are very, very frightening. And, of course, Mr. Lucas is so 4 frightened about it, he actually gets in touch at that point 5 with his own psychiatrist. His own psychiatrist suggests he 6 get in touch with Standard Gravure, and he does that and he 7 tries to warn people. But all of that is in the period of 8 time -- after Prozac. 9 So we have him being described as deteriorating, 10 as either agitated or irritable or having akathisia by other 11 observers. And then finally James Wesbecker -- now, this is 12 in retrospect, it is in his deposition, and he describes what 13 seems to be an ongoing extremely close relationship with his 14 father. Early in September -- I don't think the date is made 15 clear in the depo -- on a morning ride -- we're at Page 384 -- 16 his father is talking about being afraid his condition is 17 permanent. Now, this is important in a way that I see in my 18 practice a great deal. 19 Q. Now, is he on Prozac at this time? 20 A. He's on Prozac. 21 Q. All right. 22 A. One of the things that happens to people that 23 can affect them is that they're taking a drug that they think 24 is going to be real good and it's not helping, and that can 25 worry a person. But he actually thinks the drug is helping, 101 1 so I suspect that's not the case. He think it's helping. His 2 father said that he had recently begun to have -- recently 3 begun to have -- this is not a quote, racing thoughts and 4 trouble sleeping, difficulty keeping on the subject. So it's 5 close to a quote. He said his father seemed slower in 6 responsivenes but hyper. In other words, he was slower in 7 getting his thoughts up but hyper, overly energetic, speech 8 pattern very fast, was emotional but was neatly dressed. 9 The same day, when he picked him up after 10 school, he seemed calmer in the afternoon. He encouraged his 11 son to take lithium, talked about Prozac being a wonder drug. 12 He thinks he's doing better, wonder drug. Other people see 13 him as terribly disturbed. I have seen this problem again and 14 again with people on Prozac. The person thinks he's doing 15 better and I'll get six or seven people involved in his life, 16 interview them, and they say he's worse than ever. That's one 17 of the dangers of the drug. 18 That night Jim called his father, told him he 19 was accepted into college. His dad was a little 20 overenthusiastic, a little high, full of energy; in other 21 words, Dad was glad for his son but his retrospect is that it 22 was a bit much. 23 MR. FREEMAN: Could we have a page number on 24 that, please? 25 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Smith, why don't we plan to 102 1 wrap it up before lunch. Are we getting close? 2 A. I'm sorry, sir, but I didn't make the page 3 citation, but it's in the depo. My previous page cite is 393, 4 so it's probably in that page sequence. 5 Q. Anything else about -- 6 MR. FREEMAN: Is that a quote? 7 JUDGE POTTER: Doctor, if you are telling what 8 you relied on, it's important that you tell the jury and the 9 other lawyers what you're relying on. 10 A. This is the deposition of James Wesbecker. I'm 11 sorry if I didn't make that clear, the deposition. And it's 12 all from the 300 pages and we're going to get into 415 soon. 13 It's somewhere between 397 and 415. I sort of make my 14 postmarkers. He was picked up at school, I mention that 15 father is talking about a wonder drug. I'm not going to say 16 it's an absolutely perfect quote; I'm jotting as I'm going, 17 but I have it in quotes. He was a little overenthusiastic, a 18 little high. Full of energy. 19 Then on September 13th, in the morning -- 20 Q. September 13th, the day before this accident? 21 A. Yes. And these quotes are around Page 415, I go 22 on to another series. On September 13, his dad now seems 23 slowed down. Things had to be pulled out of him. His hair is 24 a little messed. Then in the afternoon of the 13th he now 25 looks tired. His hair is very messed; he looks like he just 103 1 woke up. And then James calls him at night -- see, they're 2 close. This is not some distant or bizarre relationship at 3 all. It's not a -- this is a father and son very, very 4 involved. And he's over at Brenda's, I mean, so he's involved 5 with Brenda, the father. And he calls him and Dad is feeling 6 better. He feels more chipper and says that he was just 7 tired, and he took a nap and now he feels better. 8 Now, this would not be at all unusual if it's at 9 about this time that he's made his decision for the following 10 morning, and on the following morning he does not pick up his 11 son. He goes out and commits the murders and then the 12 suicide. And it's very common for when the decision has been 13 made, which I would suspect was that night for the person to 14 act like they're over some hump. That's not unusual. 15 So we have here the police reports of Brenda 16 really attributing his emotional upset to the drug and saying, 17 "I asked him to go to the doctor and get rid of this drug, but 18 he obviously thinks it's a wonderful drug." He called it good 19 shit at one point, which clearly is saying like a street drug. 20 I mean, you say that about marijuana, speed and things like 21 that. 22 So we have that testimony from Brenda direct, 23 contemporaneous; we have the contemporaneous record of the 24 doctor; we have the partly contemporaneous record between Mr. 25 Lucas and his wife; we have the retrospect of Jimmy, and it 104 1 all clearly says what Doctor Coleman is seeing, that a man 2 who's been doing relatively well, he has an ongoing 3 relationship with his ex-wife, living with her, terrifically 4 close relationship with his son, but who has had struggles 5 with impulse control. This man has serious problems on and 6 off over the years. He struggles, struggles with impulse 7 control, takes the drug, gets agitated, loses control of his 8 impulses and commits the acts that he never before had done. 9 MR. SMITH: You want to take a lunch break at 10 this time, Your Honor? 11 JUDGE POTTER: Why don't you go finish your 12 direct and then we'll take the lunch. 13 Q. All right. Doctor Breggin, then, do you have an 14 opinion on whether or not Prozac is unreasonably dangerous? 15 A. Yes, I do. 16 Q. What is that opinion, sir? 17 A. I think it is clearly unreasonably dangerous. 18 It is a drug that has been associated with a great deal of 19 violence and suicide and produces agitation in a very 20 substantial number of people. 21 Q. Do you have an opinion whether or not Prozac as 22 to Joseph Wesbecker was unreasonably dangerous? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And what is that opinion, Doctor? 25 A. The very fact that Mr. Wesbecker was already 105 1 struggling with violent impulses -- see, it's really important 2 that here he is, he's already struggling with emotional 3 instability, he has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, 4 he's given a drug that's never been tested on patients with 5 these problems in its FDA approval process. It's a drug that 6 would be expected to -- 7 Q. Doctor Breggin, was it unreasonably dangerous 8 for Joseph Wesbecker? 9 A. It was unreasonably dangerous, particularly for 10 Joseph Wesbecker, unreasonably dangerous. 11 Q. Did it present an unreasonable degree of harm 12 for Joseph Wesbecker? 13 A. For Joseph Wesbecker and those around him it 14 produced an unreasonable risk of harm. 15 Q. Did it produce an unreasonable risk of harm for 16 the plaintiffs in this case? 17 A. Yes. Definitely. 18 Q. Do you have an opinion concerning whether or not 19 Prozac was a substantial factor in this tragedy that occurred 20 at Standard Gravure on September 14th, 1989? 21 A. Definitely, it was a very substantial factor in 22 what he did. 23 MR. SMITH: That's all we have, Your Honor. 24 JUDGE POTTER: Thank you very much, Doctor. You 25 may step down. 106 1 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're going to 2 take the lunch recess, and why don't we take it till quarter 3 of two. We stopped a little early. We'll stand in recess 4 till 1:45. As I mentioned to you-all, do not permit anybody 5 to speak to you or communicate with you about this case; do 6 not discuss it among yourselves. We'll stand in recess till 7 1:45. 8 (LUNCH RECESS) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 1 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're going to 2 take the lunch recess, and why don't we take it till quarter 3 of two. We stopped a little early. We'll stand in recess 4 till 1:45. As I mentioned to you-all, do not permit anybody 5 to speak to you or communicate with you about this case; do 6 not discuss it among yourselves. We'll stand in recess till 7 1:45. 8 (LUNCH RECESS; BENCH DISCUSSION) 9 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Stopher, this is something 10 Mr. Smith said they need to do, but if you want to wait for 11 Mr. Freeman, just say so after you find out what it is. 12 MR. SMITH: Number One, I have two questions I 13 forgot to ask on my direct. I don't know if I passed the 14 witness, but I was trying to finish out. 15 JUDGE POTTER: What are they? 16 MR. SMITH: Whether or not the warnings were 17 adequate and whether or not Lilly was negligent. 18 JUDGE POTTER: We'll let Mr. Freeman decide on 19 that one. 20 MR. SMITH: We wanted to renew our motion in 21 limine that was previously heard concerning the impeachment on 22 cross-examination of Doctor Breggin on materials other than 23 psychiatric materials, writings other than psychiatric 24 writings, mental health writings and psychiatry writings. 25 JUDGE POTTER: Okay. Just to kind of review the 107 1 ruling, as I remember, I have ruled no one was to mention the 2 word scientology. As far as the other things, my memory would 3 be that I had not ruled that they couldn't ask him about his 4 other writings. 5 MS. ZETTLER: Not nonmedical things. He's 6 written a play and a novel, Judge, and you did rule that they 7 could not ask him about that. 8 JUDGE POTTER: I know I'd ruled that they 9 couldn't ask him if he was a scientologist because he's going 10 to say no and there's no other evidence. 11 MR. SMITH: But this was a different issue in 12 connection with political affiliations, writings on collateral 13 matters not having to do with matters of psychiatry, mental 14 health or medical care. 15 JUDGE POTTER: Let me ask you this, Mr. Freeman. 16 Are you planning to ask this gentleman any questions other 17 than about his writings that have to do with scientific 18 things? Mr. Smith apparently has two particular writings that 19 he feels you should not ask him about. 20 MR. FREEMAN: I don't know what he's talking 21 about. 22 MR. SMITH: Plays and novels. 23 MR. FREEMAN: Plays and novels? 24 JUDGE POTTER: Do you plan to ask him about any 25 questions about any of his plays and novels. 108 1 MR. FREEMAN: I thought the Court earlier told 2 me not to ask about novels. 3 JUDGE POTTER: I couldn't remember what my 4 ruling was. Okay. One other thing. Mr. Smith wants to ask 5 him two more questions, Mr. Freeman. 6 MR. FREEMAN: If you ask him more than two I'm 7 going to ask the Judge to put you in jail. 8 JUDGE POTTER: He can tell you what the 9 questions are. 10 MR. SMITH: What is his opinion on whether or 11 not the warnings were adequate and what is his opinion 12 concerning whether or not Lilly was negligent in the clinical 13 trial data. 14 MR. FREEMAN: You can ask him those on redirect, 15 can't you? 16 MR. SMITH: Yeah. I just don't want to be 17 precluded from asking that in some form. 18 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 19 SHERIFF CECIL: The jury is now entering. All 20 jurors are present. Court is back in session. 21 JUDGE POTTER: Please be seated. 22 Doctor, I'll remind you you're still under oath. 23 Mr. Freeman. 24 25 EXAMINATION ___________ 109 1 2 BY_MR._FREEMAN: __ ___ _______ 3 Q. Doctor, on yesterday, if I recall your testimony 4 correctly, you indicated that you had located in the clinical 5 trial reports specifically a 1639 that was filled out by 6 virtue of a clinical study, a report that indicated that a 7 patient, while on the clinical trials, had killed someone 8 while on Prozac; is that correct? 9 A. No, sir. I don't believe so. 10 Q. Well, then, is it correct that you found no 11 clinical report form that indicated that a patient, though I 12 thought I recalled you saying, had committed a homicide? 13 A. No, sir. Perhaps what you're thinking of is 14 that I said that Doctor Kapit in one of his summaries 15 mentioned a patient who had developed bizarre murderous 16 feelings while on Prozac. I believe that may be what you're 17 referring to. 18 Q. And have you made an effort to look and see if 19 any patient during the clinical trials had ever committed a 20 homicidal act while on Prozac, you, yourself? 21 A. Yes, sir. I've certainly looked at that 22 question. 23 Q. Did you find any such report? 24 A. No. I don't believe there are any. 25 Q. I'm going to ask you to look at Exhibit No. 194 110 1 and look and see, please, sir, if the person referred to in 2 that report was killed. 3 MR. SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honor. I don't 4 believe Exhibit 194 has been offered and introduced into 5 evidence yet. If we could see a copy of it so we'll know what 6 Counsel is referring to. 7 MR. FREEMAN: I'm not attempting to introduce 8 it; I want to refresh his recollection. If you want to see 9 it, you may. 10 JUDGE POTTER: Let Mr. Smith see what he's 11 talking about. 12 DOCTOR BREGGIN: Did you say for Mr. Smith to 13 see this? 14 JUDGE POTTER: They're giving him a copy of it. 15 DOCTOR BREGGIN: I see. 16 MR. SMITH: This is 189 or 194? 17 Q. Did I call it wrong? What's the number of the 18 exhibit down there? 19 A. 194. 20 MR. SMITH: I have 189 in front of me. 21 Q. Doesn't look like it's accurately numbered, does 22 it? Record correction: 189, please, sir. Ask you to look at 23 that, please, sir, and tell us first if the patient referred 24 to therein was killed by someone else that was not on the 25 trial. You'll find it on the second and third pages of the 111 1 report. 2 A. Yeah. I've never seen this before so I have to 3 look and try to get oriented to it. 4 Q. All right, sir. 5 A. Yes, sir. This is someone who was murdered by 6 someone else. 7 Q. And they were not on Prozac; is that correct? 8 A. The person who murdered the person? 9 Q. The person that was murdered. 10 A. It just -- I haven't looked this over. I've 11 never seen this before and I'm having trouble understanding 12 what it's about, but it says here she sniffed cocaine once, 13 fell asleep in the sun, sustained second-degree burns on the 14 skin and was admitted to the hospital. Patient resumed 15 fluoxetine therapy on May 10th, '86, which was discontinued on 16 July 24th, 1986. And then in August she was found -- doesn't 17 actually say whether someone killed her; it says patient was 18 found dead with unknown source, blunt-force injuries to her 19 head. 20 Q. Look at the third page, please, sir. 21 A. This 27-year-old female was a presumed homicide 22 victim. Cause of death was not determined. There were 23 blunt-force injuries. Yes, sir. 24 Q. All right, sir. So that we can be clear before 25 the jury, you did not intend on yesterday or anytime to 112 1 indicate to them that you had records that someone had killed 2 someone else while the patient was on Prozac, did you, sir? 3 A. In the trials? 4 Q. Yes, sir; in the trials. 5 A. In the trials. No. No. Of course not. Never 6 came even near to suggesting anything like that. 7 Q. All right. Now, Doctor, earlier you gave a 8 definition of existentialism -- and be sure that I'm quoting 9 you correctly on this, sir -- and you indicated that it means 10 emphasis on human values and the role of human values in 11 psychotherapy. 12 A. The definition that I was giving, sir, was for 13 existential psychiatry. I really am not an expert on what the 14 philosophy of existentialism is. 15 Q. To make it plain, that was related to the term 16 as it relates to psychiatry, what you do? 17 A. Yes, it is. 18 Q. And you indicated that in your practice as a 19 psychiatrist, using that term to describe yourself? 20 A. No, sir. I did not use that term to describe 21 myself. 22 Q. To describe your practice? 23 A. No, sir. That was about a journal. I was being 24 asked about the title of a journal. It's the Journal of 25 Existential Psychiatry. I don't use that term for myself. 113 1 Q. All right, sir. Well, in defining that term, 2 tell me whether or not you said it emphasizes an emphasis on 3 human values and the role of human values in psychotherapy. 4 A. Yes. And in psychiatry in general; yes, sir. 5 Q. Now, if I understand you, when you describe what 6 you do in your practice, you indicated that "I help people 7 develop better principles for living." 8 A. That's one of the things. That's one part. 9 See, people get bad principles, confused principles, when they 10 grow up. Mr. Wesbecker, for example, got the principle that 11 life is full of losses. That's a part of feeling depressed. 12 So what you need to do -- this is called cognitive therapy; 13 this is an aspect of what's called cognitive therapy -- is you 14 help the person see "you got the idea life is full of losses 15 because you experienced it before you could reason. You 16 experienced it at age one, age three or age five." And then 17 it's the job of the therapist to say that principle is 18 injurious. I'm not talking about moral principles when I was 19 saying it; I'm talking about principles of living, of 20 thinking. 21 Or if somebody has been hit a lot or hurt a lot 22 and they get frightened by other people, you have to show them 23 you don't have to be that afraid when you go in a store. You 24 don't have to be that afraid on the street, hopefully. That's 25 an experience you've had as a child, you have a viewpoint no 114 1 longer appropriate to the present time. That's what I meant, 2 sir. 3 Q. But to help people develop better principles of 4 living? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. That is a direct quote, is it not? 7 A. Oh, it could be. It's what I believe. 8 Q. Also, have you said and written that, 9 "Permitting children to have sex among themselves would go a 10 long way toward liberating them from oppressive parental 11 authority," as reported in your book, The Psychology of 12 Freedom, at Page 209? 13 A. That -- if I could roll back time and roll up 14 that sheet of paper, it certainly was something I said. It's 15 wrong. Never repeated it again. I wrote it more than 15 16 years ago; it got published in 1980. I'd like to explain 17 where I got such an idea from, but it's a wrong idea; never 18 repeated it, never lived by it, never encouraged anyone else 19 to live by it, and haven't heard of it since 1980. 20 Q. You said 1980? 21 A. The book was published in '80, but it was 22 written earlier. It took me, for obvious reasons, a number of 23 years to get it published. It was mostly a boring book. But 24 I definitely do not ascribe to that. Could I explain where I 25 got that idea from, what the context of the book is? 115 1 Q. If they want to ask you that on cross, they 2 certainly would. 3 Now, also in the same book on Page 207, I'll ask 4 you, please, sir, if you have written that, "Sex between 5 consenting equals is as harmless among children as among 6 adults." 7 A. Yeah. That's from that same two pages that 8 never should have been written, that I don't agree with. As I 9 said, and I actually, mercifully, have not had anyone come 10 back and suggest to me it was something they'd read and they 11 would think of living by. It was wrong. Children actually 12 need restraint. Children actually need to not be put into 13 relationships that are beyond them emotionally, and it's just 14 wrong, and I disagree with that. 15 Q. These are principles that you put out on the 16 Freedom of Psychology in a written form, and I have an 17 autographed copy here of it. That's your signature, isn't it? 18 Can you see it? 19 A. Yes. I can imagine it is. I did autograph my 20 books. 21 Q. I'll ask you also, sir, if you wrote, "If two 22 little children are fond of each other and if they learn to 23 treat each other with respect, don't worry about what they are 24 doing behind closed doors; they may be having more fun than 25 you do when you get behind closed doors." I'll ask you to 116 1 look at that and tell me if that is an exact quote. 2 A. I do think I should have some time to explain 3 what the context of all that was, and so let me take a minute 4 and explain it. In the 1970s -- 5 Q. I think you can explain that if his Counsel -- 6 JUDGE POTTER: He can explain it. 7 Q. All right. 8 A. I mean, because it's an embarrassment; this is a 9 dumb idea, but I'd like you to know what the context of it 10 was. It was not an idea that played any role in my therapy, 11 ever, or any role in raising my kids. I have kids age 14 to 12 31 that are very conservative socially. It's not an idea I 13 talked about in workshops; it was something I wrote in a book, 14 and this was the context of it. 15 In the '70s, ahead of foremost mental health 16 professionals, I became very aware of the damaging effects of 17 child abuse, which that section also talks about and the 18 sections before it, that children were being abused much more 19 than we realized. Now, this was not at the time a recognized 20 idea, and I was trying to understand it because a couple of my 21 clients, two or three of my patients at the time -- two or 22 three of my patients had come to me and in the therapy had 23 said they had had a sexual experience at age seven and ten 24 with another child, and it didn't seem to harm them. What had 25 harmed them, as they described it, was when adults found out 117 1 and got so enraged and angered. And from that I drew a false 2 conclusion, in my concern for children not having put on them 3 such a heavy abusive response from adults to their sexual 4 experimenting, I took the position that it might be a lot 5 better if they could. 6 Now, in fact, as well-intentioned as that was, 7 it is a wrong idea. Children need restraint of adults. They 8 need the control of adults. That is how I've always operated 9 as a parent and, as I said, I've never heard of that again. I 10 have never advocated it; people haven't come up and said you 11 advocated this, let's run with it. It was a wrong idea. 12 Q. Did you accept money for putting these ideas in 13 writing and selling them to the general public of the United 14 States of America? Did you accept money for doing so? 15 A. I got paid a small amount of money for that 16 book. 17 Q. In the same book, on the subject of religion on 18 Page 70, the difference -- quote, the difference between 19 believing in the divine -- 20 MR. SMITH: Objection, Your Honor. 21 JUDGE POTTER: Let me see you up here. 22 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 23 MR. SMITH: This goes -- 24 JUDGE POTTER: Let me hear what the quote is 25 going to be. 118 1 MR. FREEMAN: The thrust of the quote is there's 2 no difference in believing your Christ and in believing in 3 Christ, and I think this goes to his whole credibility on 4 principles and everything else that he says he espouses. 5 MR. SMITH: This is religious premise and it is 6 wholly inappropriate to what the man's religion is. 7 MR. FREEMAN: This is a psychiatric principle. 8 JUDGE POTTER: Let me see the book. 9 MR. FREEMAN: That's all I plan to read right 10 there, Judge. 11 JUDGE POTTER: (Examines reference) Mr. Smith, 12 he's talking about mental illness. 13 MR. SMITH: Don't let him characterize it as a 14 religious philosophy, Your Honor. 15 JUDGE POTTER: It's a quote. Go ahead. 16 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 17 Q. Now, sir, quoting again from the Psychology of 18 Freedom, I ask you if on Page 70 you made this precise 19 statement: "The difference between believing in the divinity 20 of Christ and believing in oneself as Christ is merely a 21 difference in religious point of view." Did you make that 22 statement? 23 A. Again, I need to put it in context and explain 24 it. This is actually a second-hand idea. This is something 25 that my professor, Thomas Zoss, at the university spoke about. 119 1 And the point he was trying to make and that I was trying to 2 make is that having a belief is not a biochemical disorder, so 3 that the person who has gotten all enrapt in themselves and 4 thinks they are the center of the religious universe, that 5 they are like God, that that person in a sense has a religious 6 belief, that is, a belief of their own divinity. It is 7 irrational, it is crazy, but there's no way to say that that 8 is caused by biochemistry in contrast to a healthy belief, in 9 contrast to a healthy Christian, Jewish or Moslem belief. 10 In other words, it was meant to illustrate -- by 11 the way, I would not say it that way anymore. I've written 12 five books since this rather hard-edged book. They don't read 13 like this. This is an old book when I was a much younger 14 person. But, at any rate, the point I was trying to make is 15 that beliefs are not diseases of a biochemical nature. They 16 can be good; they can be bad. It is very disastrous to think 17 you're Jesus; it can be incredibly liberating, obviously, and 18 good and wonderful to believe in Jesus. The point was that 19 they're beliefs. And just because one person has a very, very 20 irrational belief doesn't mean that that one is biochemical 21 and the other one isn't. 22 That was the point trying to be made, made in a 23 way that was insensitive at the time. There's a lot of edge 24 in that book I'm not comfortable with. I don't hand it out. 25 Q. And yet today you have been here for two days, 120 1 sir, testifying that Mr. Joseph Wesbecker for a biochemical 2 reason went out and did what he did on September the 14th, in 3 the year 1989, have you not? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, we'd object to Counsel 6 approaching the Witness and screaming at the Witness. That's 7 inappropriate behavior. 8 JUDGE POTTER: Why don't you stay back at the 9 table; how about that. 10 MR. FREEMAN: I'm sorry. I just get a little 11 upset. I'm sorry. I got upset. 12 JUDGE POTTER: That's all right. 13 Q. Now, also, some of your scientific writings have 14 appeared in the Penthouse magazine; is that true or not, sir? 15 A. I wrote an essay for Penthouse that's even older 16 than this particular book. We're going back how many years 17 now, sir? I don't remember the date. 18 Q. 1979. 19 A. '79? 20 Q. Now, let me ask you this question, please, sir. 21 In the Penthouse magazine on Page 74 -- I apologize, on 22 Page 80, the name of your article was The Psychiatric 23 Holocaust; is that correct? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. And in that article you blamed English and 121 1 American psychiatrists -- psychiatry -- for Hitler's racial 2 programs in the extermination of the Jews, did you not? 3 A. Not quite, sir. Again, I need to discuss what 4 that article says and, in fact, the fact that that article is 5 now in a medical journal. So let me respond to what the 6 article is about. 7 Q. If you would let me just finish one question and 8 then you may respond in full. 9 A. Thank you. 10 Q. In the second paragraph of the article it says, 11 "Without the support of English and American psychiatry, 12 Hitler's racial programs might never have become so 13 acceptable, and without the active efforts of German 14 psychiatry, the extermination program would have never gotten 15 off the ground." Is that an accurate quote, sir? 16 A. I believe that, so you don't need to show me the 17 quote, sir. That is true, and I'd like to explain it. 18 Q. You believe that? 19 A. Oh, it's true. In fact, that position is 20 held -- the same position, as I quote in the article, was held 21 by the AMA representative at the Nuremberg trials, the same 22 position -- his name was Ivy. The same position was held by 23 Leo Alexander, our chief investigator, at the Nuremberg 24 trials. The same position was held -- I quote them 25 throughout -- was held by the German AMA representatives, 122 1 their equivalent of the AMA. 2 And the -- I think I'd like to just take a 3 couple of minutes and explain to you what happened in Germany. 4 This is an area I've researched heavily. It's an area that I 5 gave a presentation at based on that article which has evolved 6 over the years at a conference in Germany of historians 7 because I'm considered an expert on the role of psychiatry in 8 Nazi Germany. If you go in the Holocaust Museum you'll find 9 what I say in display at the Holocaust Museum, and you'll find 10 my medical version of that article in the archives and you'll 11 find another version of that article published in a book that 12 just came out, one of our books that just came out. 13 What happened in Nazi Germany was that the 14 Holocaust, the murder of people, began with mental patients. 15 German psychiatry organized systematically the murder of 16 patients. The patients were rated on euthanasia forms by 17 professors in Berlin, and then they were sent to six murder 18 centers. The article -- I didn't call it The Psychiatric 19 Holocaust; I didn't like that. That was put in. I called it 20 more correctly The Murder Of Mental Patients, that was my 21 title. But they had another article in there named murder and 22 they changed the title on it. I call it The Murder Of Mental 23 Patients. 24 The patients were killed in six extermination 25 centers, Hadomar, Sonnenstein, a whole group of extermination 123 1 centers. They were killed in gas chambers with carbon 2 monoxide, with wooden soap, with all the trappings that we 3 associate with the Holocaust. Hitler was actually criticized 4 by very brave religious leaders for what he was doing and he 5 called an end in 1940 to this program, which by then had 6 killed an estimated sixty to one hundred thousand mental 7 patients, not particularly Jews. 8 Then when the systematic murder in the camps 9 began, psychiatrists from this program, from the euthanasia 10 program, Werner Hayde, for example, H-A-Y-D-E, went to the 11 camps and selected the first Jews on the euthanasia forms and 12 sent them to the extermination camps, the smaller psychiatric 13 euthanasia camps. Only about 10,000 were killed in that 14 manner. 15 When Hitler decided to do the mass extermination 16 of Jews and gypsies and Russian soldiers -- he killed a lot of 17 people, although he focused on Jews -- he set those camps up 18 mostly in Poland. Literally, the euthanasia centers were 19 dismantled and carried to Poland where they became the 20 mechanical basis for the extermination and, furthermore, the 21 personnel from the euthanasia camps were the first to staff 22 the camps that were used for the mass exterminations. 23 Now, it all began -- and this is where the 24 American and English connection comes in. These were 25 biological psychiatrists, incidentally, because when Hitler 124 1 took over, the psychoanalytically and psychologically oriented 2 psychiatrists fled the country, so what we had was the 3 biological, biochemical wing, which was extremely strong in 4 Germany. And the psychological social wing was a very strong 5 social psychiatry and had fled to England and the United 6 States. Incidentally, the first book advocating the 7 extermination of mental patients was by a psychiatrist, Paul 8 Hoche, H-O-C-H-E, in 1920, in Germany, before Hitler came to 9 power. 10 Then -- and I'll be brief now. It all began 11 with the sterilization laws in Germany. The first thing that 12 Hitler enacted were the sterilization laws. The connection 13 between sterilization and euthanasia is very direct because 14 they first sterilized two or three hundred thousand people 15 against their will. But when that program stopped, euthanasia 16 took over. There is a direct connection between the programs. 17 The Germans were concerned about whether or not 18 their public would accept the sterilization program, and so 19 Americans who were running very large-scale sterilization 20 programs -- California at that time was involuntarily 21 sterilizing every discharged mental patient. Virginia was 22 sterilizing thousands and thousands of mental patients and 23 particularly retarded people and poor people, particularly 24 poor people. 25 Paul Popenoe, who was in charge of the 125 1 statistical evaluations for the state of California, went to 2 Germany and talked to the Germans and reassured Ernst Rudin, 3 who was the chief psychiatrist in charge of sterilization -- 4 got the Iron Cross from Hitler -- reassured him that since 5 America had accepted sterilization, indeed our Supreme Court 6 had approved of it, it could be accepted in Germany. And it 7 is generally agreed that there was wide-scale support for 8 psychiatric aspects of Germany. 9 Now, I'll finish with perhaps the saddest part 10 of the story from my viewpoint as an American. In 1941, there 11 was a debate held in the American Psychiatric Association, and 12 in 1942, about whether we in America should begin sterilizing 13 -- no. I'm sorry; that was already going on -- should begin 14 exterminating incurable five-year-olds who were severely 15 mentally retarded. Foster Kennedy, a very famous American 16 neurologist and psychiatrist, took the position that we should 17 exterminate these patients. And then -- and the most grim of 18 all things -- an editorial appeared in the American Journal of 19 Psychiatry in 1942, calling for the extermination of the 20 incurably retarded. 21 The idea that psychiatry was central to the 22 Holocaust is ghastly upsetting. I am proud that I am the 23 first person to have published an article on it in the United 24 States. Since then, dozens of books have been published on 25 this in Germany, several in the United States; one of them is 126 1 a book by a professor of genetics in Germany who invited me to 2 come give my paper, an updated version of the one published in 3 Penthouse, in Germany. That paper and what I've told you was 4 published I think last year in the International Journal of 5 Risk and Safety in Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal. And if 6 you go to the Holocaust Museum, you'll find a little section 7 that tells this story. 8 Thank you for your attentiveness. I just felt I 9 needed to let you know how serious this issue is to me, how 10 much I have researched it. Thank you. 11 Q. Are you quite finished? 12 A. I said I was finished. I said thank you. 13 Q. In connection with the article, did you accept 14 money from Penthouse to print this article in that magazine? 15 A. Yes. Definitely. Penthouse in these days, by 16 the way -- I don't -- I haven't seen Penthouse in 15 years or 17 whatever, since here, but they had many articles by 18 intellectuals, many articles by academicians; it was the style 19 of the journal. And, of course, none of us -- at least I 20 wasn't quite so conscious in those days about the implications 21 of these kind of magazines for women, and I don't think too 22 many of us men were then. I would not publish an article in 23 Penthouse now; my wife would not want me to publish an article 24 in Penthouse. 25 Would you remove this, please? I find the cover 127 1 offensive. Would you remove it, please? Would you please 2 take this back, sir? 3 JUDGE POTTER: You can just set it on the floor. 4 Q. In 1979 were you married? 5 A. Was I married in 1979? I might have been 6 between. I don't recall, sir. 7 Q. All right. We offer Exhibit No. 186. 8 MR. SMITH: We'd object to this as being wholly 9 inflammatory and an attempt by the jury (sic) to -- 10 JUDGE POTTER: Approach the bench. 11 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 12 MR. SMITH: They must really be worried about 13 Doctor Breggin if they would attach the cover of the magazine 14 and this drawing here, which are -- it's appalling to me. 15 MR. FREEMAN: I don't mind removing the first 16 page, if that's the objection. I only had it there to 17 identify what it was from. It's included in there to show his 18 financial interest in selling the magazine. 19 MR. SMITH: If it's going to be admitted at all, 20 we need to take this caricature off of here. He didn't draw 21 the caricature and it's not part of the article. 22 JUDGE POTTER: The caricature is an illustration 23 for the article and it can come in with the front page off. 24 MR. SMITH: He didn't draw it; he didn't have 25 any control over the caricature. This was done by artists, 128 1 I'm sure, at the magazine. To put this caricature on the top 2 of the thing takes away from the article. If he said what he 3 said, that's fine. 4 JUDGE POTTER: We had diagrams in here the other 5 day that were drawn for his books by other people. It's part 6 of his article. 7 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 8 Q. Now, your article is referenced on the cover 9 page of Penthouse for the month, January 1979, is it not? 10 A. I wouldn't have remembered that, sir. I don't 11 control that. 12 Q. Would you look, please, sir, and see. 13 A. (Reviews document) Yes, sir. 14 Q. Now, though you say that you did not make up the 15 title, The Psychiatric Holocaust, certainly Penthouse 16 submitted it to you for your approval prior to entitling your 17 article that, did they not, sir? 18 A. Well, that's a long time ago. I have a vague 19 memory of them calling and saying we have another article with 20 murder in the title and my not particularly liking this title, 21 but it's not an inaccurate one. I mean, it's not an 22 inaccurate title, it just doesn't have the kind of flavor I 23 would want; it wasn't direct, but it's not inaccurate. It was 24 the prelude to the Holocaust. 25 Q. Now, in that connection, Doctor Breggin, before 129 1 we get the tops off of there, you have been at odds with other 2 psychiatrists, the majority of other psychiatrists in the 3 U. S., particularly those that recommend that one might be 4 helped by a variety of medications; is that true? 5 A. I don't know what you mean "at odds," sir. I've 6 had my opinions; they've been published and they're published 7 in many journals, peer review journals, medical publishers, so 8 I don't know what you mean by "at odds," sir. 9 Q. In that particular article you directly blamed 10 American psychiatry and English psychiatry for what happened 11 in Germany. 12 A. I held them responsible, A, for the mass 13 sterilization programs that led to the mass sterilization 14 programs in Germany. I held them responsible for not publicly 15 attacking and criticizing what was going on in Germany. It 16 was well known in American psychiatry in 1942 what was going 17 on there. Only one voice was raised that I know of in the 18 entire profession of psychiatry at that time saying it is 19 wrong to do this. 20 I not only hold American psychiatry responsible 21 and English for not standing up on the issue, but, indeed, so 22 did virtually every medical observer at Nuremberg. They all 23 said this wouldn't have happened without psychiatry, and they 24 said -- the international medical community believes this. 25 And even the German -- the two German doctors sent by the 130 1 equivalent of their AMA wrote, and I quote them, I believe, in 2 the article, wrote that this couldn't have taken place without 3 the participation of psychiatry. There is nothing in that 4 article that's inaccurate. 5 SHERIFF CECIL: (Hands document to jurors). 6 A. It would be nice perhaps for you to see the 7 medical version because that has all the footnotes. That 8 doesn't have footnotes. I could have the medical version 9 faxed here, and that could be distributed, too, so you could 10 see the enormous documentation of all of this in the medical 11 journal. 12 Q. It is a fact -- 13 A. Would that be all right with you, Mr. Freeman, 14 if we also presented the jury with my -- the medical article 15 with all the footnotes and all the references? 16 Q. You may ask your own counsel about that. If he 17 wishes to do so, he'll be happy to do that in the way of 18 cross-examination. I don't happen to have that record with 19 me. 20 Now, is it true, sir, that you have been 21 critical of psychiatrists that prescribed medication for the 22 treatment of mental disorders? 23 A. I don't think it's the preferred method; that's 24 right, sir. 25 Q. You have been critical, have you not, sir, of 131 1 that? 2 A. At times I've been critical of them; at times 3 I've been mainly suggesting that educational, psychological, 4 social interventions are better for people than medication. 5 Q. You say at times you've been critical of them, 6 at other times you're not critical of them. Let's see which 7 way you are today. Are you critical of them today for giving 8 medicines that assist persons to get over mental illness? 9 A. I personally think it's not the answer. 10 Q. So you've been critical of them? 11 A. If you call that critical. I'm critical of 12 particularly the widespread use of medication, which I believe 13 replaces a caring, wise approaches in therapy. I believe it 14 has replaced too much the idea that human beings need to 15 develop their spiritual strength, their psychological 16 strength, their social strength. It's hard to get that from a 17 pill. It's very difficult through a pill to learn to handle 18 life in a more loving way, a more caring way, a more rational 19 way; that is what I believe. 20 Q. Isn't it also, sir, that you referred on 21 yesterday to four published articles that were critical of 22 Prozac as relates to violent -- one relating to violent 23 behavior and three relating to suicidal ideation and attempt? 24 A. I thought I referred to many more than that, so 25 I'm not sure what you're... 132 1 Q. I'm asking you about the articles, but let me 2 just ask you this question. 3 A. No. I referred to more than that. 4 Q. Let me ask you this question: Is it true that 5 most of the published literature shows that Prozac does not 6 cause suicide or violent behavior? Isn't that true? 7 A. No, sir. The published literature doesn't 8 address it exactly as Eli Lilly's own research never addressed 9 it. 10 Q. May I see his deposition of August 16th, 1974, 11 at Page 119. At Line 11, and starting back with -- to get it 12 all, from Line 5. 13 A. What is this you're reading from? 14 Q. Your deposition. 15 A. Thank you. 16 Q. First question: "The literature on Prozac is 17 decidedly in favor of Prozac? 18 "Answer: Yes. 19 "Question: When you say 'in favor', you mean in 20 favor of its being effective in treating depression? 21 "Answer: Yes, sir. Published literature. 22 "Eleven: And in favor of its not inducing 23 suicidal or violence, that's what the published literature 24 says? 25 "Answer: Most of it, not all of it." 133 1 Do you remember giving those questions and those 2 answers, please, sir, upon your deposition? 3 A. Yeah. But the last one is really not an 4 accurate statement in the sense that the published literature 5 doesn't address the issue of violence, so that would need to 6 be, you know, emphasized a little differently. 7 Q. You were sworn when you gave this testimony, 8 were you not? 9 A. Certainly. 10 Q. And you were given a copy of it to make any 11 corrections or additions, were you not? 12 A. Yes. Uh-huh. 13 Q. And did you ever sign an errata or correction 14 sheet, did you not? 15 A. Yes. But you can't correct what you've said 16 when you correct a deposition, sir; you can only correct 17 mistakes on the part of the person who transcribes. 18 Q. Oh, I see. That's your understanding? 19 A. Oh, absolutely. 20 Q. All right, sir. And so you did not make any 21 corrections or objections to what you had said in that 22 connection, did you, sir? 23 A. No. I didn't expect your emphasis on it. 24 Basically the literature doesn't deal with the issue. You 25 can't produce a bunch of papers showing that Prozac doesn't 134 1 cause violence, so you could just -- the papers don't exist in 2 that sense. 3 Q. If you'll accept that, we'll take care of that 4 in our part of the case; all right, sir? 5 Now, so that we can get a picture about your 6 standing and qualifications, as I understand it, you are not 7 board certified in the field of psychiatry, are you, sir? 8 A. No. I never took the boards, sir. 9 Q. So you are not board certified, are you, sir? 10 A. No. I'm qualified to take the boards, I have 11 all the training, but never took them. 12 Q. Now, do you have any privileges in any hospital 13 in the United States of America to admit any psychiatric 14 patient to a hospital facility for mental treatment? 15 A. No. I let those lapse because my practice has 16 been so focused on office practice, but I used to have 17 privileges. But I almost never have to hospitalize anyone; 18 there was not any purpose to continuing them. 19 Q. Now, you have no hospital privileges; is that 20 right? 21 A. Correct. I let them lapse. 22 Q. Now, is that because you believe that no matter 23 what the circumstance of the patient, that is, if the patient 24 is suicidal, if the patient is murderous, if the patient is 25 homicidal, that you as a physician will not have them 135 1 involuntarily committed to hospital? 2 A. Yes, sir. And again I'd like to explain, and 3 this is again something that my own professors that I was 4 trained with believe and I firmly believe, but it's not such 5 an unusual idea as you might think. 6 There's a very big question about whether having 7 psychiatrists lock up people against their will is good for 8 people, whether that's the way to go. Everyone agrees that 9 suicide is a tragedy. It's a blessing in my life that I've 10 never had a suicide in my whole practice; never had one in my 11 internship, never had one in my residency. In fact, I haven't 12 even had a series suicide attempt in 20 years, as far as I 13 know, in my practice, and it's a full practice, and I've not 14 had a murder, either, or any violence. 15 Now, one of the reasons I think that that's so 16 is that I'm lucky, because any good doctor can have something 17 terrible happen. I don't think Doctor Coleman made a horrible 18 mistake in what happened here; he didn't know what Prozac 19 could do. But my experience is that when you lock someone up 20 against their will, it makes them more angry, it makes them 21 feel like their esteem, their sense of worth has been taken 22 away from them. Patient after patient of mine comes to me and 23 tells me about the terrible experiences that they've had 24 before coming to see me of hospitalization. And there's even 25 an excellent article in Science magazine about how this 136 1 affects people. 2 There's another problem with relying on 3 hospitals if a patient's homicidal. Psychiatrists have no 4 particular super-human ability to decide when somebody is or 5 isn't homicidal; that's been discovered again and again. 6 You're better off using -- if you want to protect the public, 7 you're far better off -- and it is important to protect the 8 public -- using the criminal justice system. Too often, 9 people are put in mental hospitals because they're violent, 10 and then a doctor comes along -- just one person, not a parole 11 board or not a series of people, not a panel -- one doctor 12 says, "Now he's better," lets him go home, and he causes 13 mayhem. 14 So from my viewpoint, locking up people 15 involuntarily is not a good idea. That doesn't mean we 16 shouldn't have hospitals. I wish we had more good, humane, 17 loving, caring, supportive hospitals. I'm in favor of it. 18 I'm a consultant, in fact, to a clinic that has a day hospital 19 and a weekend hospital that operates on the principles that I 20 believe in out in California. I really believe in good 21 facilities. 22 But my experience is that locking up people 23 against their will does exactly what in this case Doctor 24 Coleman was afraid of. He didn't want to lock up 25 Mr. Wesbecker against his will for fear of making it harder to 137 1 have a relationship with him. So I don't lock up people 2 against their will, but I sure do work very, very hard if one 3 of my patients is suicidal or if one of them is dangerous. 4 I'll get family involved; I'll get community involved; I'll 5 see the person for free for two weeks if they don't have any 6 money. And that's the kind of thing you have to do if you 7 don't lock people up. You've got to get involved and you've 8 got to say, "I'm here and I'm going to work with you." 9 Thank you for that time. These are important 10 and complicated issues and it's important that I express to 11 you what I believe. 12 Q. So when we talk about an involuntary committal, 13 do you know what is required, for example, in the state of 14 Kentucky, to put a person in hospital or in a medical facility 15 involuntarily? 16 A. I have in the past reviewed the statutes; I 17 didn't for this case. I remember Doctor Coleman saying that 18 he wasn't -- I believe saying he wasn't a danger to himself or 19 others, as far as he knew, and was not suitable for 20 commitment. The laws are fairly standard around the country. 21 You either have to be a danger to self or others or in a state 22 of such deterioration that you can't take care of yourself. 23 That's the general theme from state to state, but I haven't 24 recently checked the Kentucky statute. 25 Q. Now, so, if I understand a summary of your 138 1 testimony, you don't believe in involuntarily committing a 2 person to a medical care facility who either exhibits harm to 3 himself or harm to the public in general or in specific? 4 A. Right. I believe in doing other things. 5 Q. Which amounts to being able to try, through 6 family members and your abilities, to talk them out of 7 whatever they are going to do? 8 A. Oh, no. No. I've gone further than that. I 9 have warned people, other people, where I thought there was a 10 danger. I've had one of my patients get very mad at me about 11 that not very long ago. I have on one occasion involved the 12 police, because I believe that it is better for somebody who 13 is dangerous to look at the consequences, to look a policeman 14 in the eye, to realize that this is a serious matter and 15 potentially to go to jail and face that consequence. 16 Now, it may sound like a tough line to take with 17 people. My experience is that it makes so much more sense to 18 people, and I think it's one of the reasons, again, why I have 19 never had anyone injured, as far as I know, as a result of 20 anyone who was seeing me. And I think it's because I get more 21 involved, I take -- I take it seriously. 22 It's so easy to say when the patient comes, 23 "You're deteriorating; I'll involuntarily hospitalize you." I 24 would instead see the patient every day if I have to. But 25 that's the commitment I make because of those principles. 139 1 This is a very real, living issue to me because I'm in 2 full-time private practice and have been for 20 years. 3 Q. Now, earlier, when you were talking about your 4 qualifications you indicated that you were the Director of the 5 Center for the Study of Psychiatry. 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. And I'll ask you, please, sir, who are the 8 employees of the Center for the Study of Psychiatry? 9 A. I employ an assistant who partly works on the 10 center, partly works on other things that we do. My wife is 11 very heavily involved in it. I'm involved in it, all on a 12 volunteer basis. The only person who gets paid at anything 13 for working at the center is my assistant. And then we have 14 co-directors of our children's division, educators, 15 professors; they're involved in the center and their name is 16 on the letterhead. 17 And the center itself is a network of people who 18 are concerned about issues in psychiatry, and, in fact, I was 19 just curious so I started looking. We have like 40 physicians 20 who are members of the center, most of them psychiatrists; 21 board of directors has two congressmen, a neurologist, a 22 psychiatrist, professor of psychiatry, another retired 23 professor of psychiatry, another professor of psychiatry, 24 psychologist who is just retired as the editor in chief of a 25 major journal, another congressman, another psychiatrist, a 140 1 psychologist who was president of the American Academy of 2 Psychotherapists a few years ago; someone else who is a 3 professor of justice at American University. It's an 4 enormously distinguished group of people, and this is the 5 board of directors. There's over 100 people involved. It's 6 an enormously distinguished group, sir. 7 Q. As I understand it, there is one part-time paid 8 employee; is that correct? 9 A. Yes. And not even technically paid by the 10 center because we never use the center money except for 11 educational purposes, so I pay her out of my income as a 12 psychiatrist. 13 Q. And the center is operated out of your home; is 14 that correct? 15 A. Home office. My home and office are attached. 16 I have an office built on my home. 17 Q. home office might mean something to one person, 18 but your home is where your office is located; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And your office is where you see whatever 22 patients you see; is that correct? 23 A. Yes, sir. Uh-huh. The entire house is a giant 24 office and also a play area for young people. 25 Q. Doctor, how much have you charged the plaintiffs 141 1 in this case to the present moment? 2 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, we object to that; 3 that's beyond the scope of discovery, beyond the scope of 4 admissible evidence. 5 JUDGE POTTER: Approach the bench. 6 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 7 MR. SMITH: As I understand it, the Kentucky law 8 says it's within the discretion of the Court. In this 9 particular instance, what I paid Doctor Breggin -- the amounts 10 of money I paid Doctor Breggin would be prejudicial. I have 11 had to hire Doctor Breggin when Eli Lilly and Company has had 12 five on-staff psychiatrists working. I'll never be able to 13 establish how much they've been paid. I think for me -- for 14 them to get into evidence before the jury how much I paid him 15 puts me in a prejudicial situation. I think the Court in 16 balancing the case has to consider that. 17 I've had to bear the cost for these plaintiffs 18 alone, whereas Lilly has had psychiatrists on their own staff; 19 they have clinical researchers, physicians. Doctor Breggin 20 has had to do all the research himself. None of their experts 21 have had to do the research and investigation that Doctor 22 Breggin has had to do. For those reasons we would request 23 that Counsel not be allowed to inquire as to the amount of 24 money paid by me to Doctor Breggin. 25 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Freeman? 142 1 MR. FREEMAN: It goes to his credibility and his 2 interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the case. 3 JUDGE POTTER: You know, different -- the only 4 case I've ever found is like an early 1960 case that says it 5 was not wrong to keep it out, and I've just generally let that 6 in. I think juries are sophisticated and, you know, it comes 7 in for what it's worth, and I've just generally let it in. 8 And the fact that there are some in-house experts I don't 9 think changes that. 10 MR. SMITH: In a normal case, certainly I 11 probably wouldn't have said anything. The problem with this 12 case is by virtue of the amount of work that Doctor Breggin 13 has had to do that Lilly has not had to do because they've 14 already had them, there's been confidentiality orders in 15 place, it's been difficult to get -- I think it puts me in a 16 prejudicial situation I don't know that I can ever explain. 17 JUDGE POTTER: I'm going to overrule the 18 objection. 19 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 20 MR. FREEMAN: Julie, would you mind reading the 21 last question propounded to the Witness so that he may answer 22 it, please. 23 (REPORTER READS THE RECORD) 24 A. Well, I had the figures at deposition time. At 25 deposition it was $25,000 for two years of a lot, a lot of 143 1 work; since then, it's been considerable more. I don't know 2 what that adds up to now. I don't think it's doubled it, but 3 it was $25,000 at that time that I definitely had a figure on 4 and gave you. 5 Q. So it could be anywhere -- if it hadn't quite 6 doubled, it could be on the order of forty-five thousands of 7 dollars that you've charged the plaintiffs in this case to 8 come here and testify? 9 A. I think it's less than that, but you also have 10 to consider it's been a very big job for two years. 11 Q. Now, is -- can you give us a definition of 12 psychopharmacology, please. 13 A. The treatment -- psychopharmacology is more than 14 treatment; psychopharmacology is the study, the investigation 15 of the specialty of how drugs work on the brain. It's a 16 specialty that is grounded in the very detailed particulars of 17 how drugs interact with the brain, how the brain responds to 18 them. 19 Q. Psychopharmacology then has to do with compounds 20 or medicines that are given to treat a condition that exists 21 in the brain; correct? 22 A. Well, that's a definition, too, of psychiatry. 23 Q. But psychopharmacology is treatment, treatment 24 with compounds? 25 A. I wouldn't say that, no. For example, I 144 1 wouldn't consider myself a specialist in psychopharmacology 2 because that's a Ph.D. degree; it's a whole different ball 3 game than being a physician. I treat people with psychiatric 4 drugs and it doesn't make me a psychopharmacologist; it makes 5 me a physician in psychiatry treating people. So that 6 wouldn't work for psychopharmacology. Psychopharmacology is a 7 specialty. You don't have to be a medical doctor. It's about 8 the science of the brain. Most psychopharmacologists are 9 Ph.D.s, not necessarily about treatment, even. 10 Q. What is pharmacology? 11 A. The same thing except for the whole body. 12 Q. Is organic chemistry a cornerstone for 13 pharmacology? 14 A. I'm smiling because in deposition you found the 15 only failing or near-failing grade I ever had in 20 years of 16 going to school. 17 MR. FREEMAN: Your Honor, I have a question 18 pending. 19 JUDGE POTTER: Doctor, I think you need to 20 answer his question. 21 A. Biochemistry, organic chemistry, I don't know if 22 it's a cornerstone for pharmacology, but it certainly would be 23 a very important part of it. 24 Q. And you indicated that we somehow embarrassed 25 you in your deposition, upon asking you about what you made on 145 1 a grade in organic chemistry when you were coming here to 2 testify against us? 3 A. No. You didn't embarrass me. You abused me. 4 Here I am a person who has had almost straight As his entire 5 life, who graduated near the top of his class in high school, 6 near the top of his class at Harvard, who never failed a 7 subject in all of medical school, who never had any grade 8 below C and had almost all As, and somehow you managed to find 9 I got a D in organic chemistry. It's astonishing. Did you 10 also notice I graduated with honors despite that D, that I got 11 into medical school, the best in the country? 12 Q. We are delighted for you, sir. In spite of that 13 grade we're delighted that you did. 14 A. That's what the astonishment was about, sir, 15 that you could manage -- in such an academic career that you 16 could find a grade that was my senior year of college; I was 17 already in medical school. I have to admit that having 18 already gotten into medical school and being in my senior year 19 I was not as attentive as I might have been. 20 Q. And having been turned down for the Harvard 21 Medical School; isn't that true? 22 A. Yes. Probably fortunately, too. I might not 23 have been smart enough for Harvard Medical School. That is 24 tough. That is tough, sir. 25 Q. Now, during your direct examination, you went 146 1 through at some length the medical records of Doctor Coleman, 2 did you not? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 MR. FREEMAN: May I have the complete records on 5 Joseph Wesbecker, please? 6 We will remove the tabs if the Court wants us to 7 later. They are here for convenience of indexing. 8 JUDGE POTTER: Okay. 9 Q. I'll ask you, please, to look at our copy of the 10 medical records of Joseph Wesbecker, and if you would look at 11 the index at the beginning, it will tell you the places, 12 physicians, health-care providers and the like that have tried 13 to help this man. 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. Do those appear to be complete if the index is 16 complete? 17 A. Oh, I couldn't venture whether it's complete, 18 but it certainly is comprehensive; yes, sir. It looks very 19 much like what I had to review. 20 MR. FREEMAN: At this time we offer what we 21 represent to the Court as we know it to be of the complete 22 medical records of Joseph Wesbecker. 23 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, we don't have any 24 objection to the medical records of Mr. Wesbecker being 25 introduced, but we would like to check authenticity to make 147 1 sure their copy matches ours. 2 JUDGE POTTER: Why don't you work from it, we'll 3 go ahead and admit it, and you can look at it after today and 4 make sure that his copy matches your copy. So it will be 5 admitted. What is the number? 6 MR. MYERS: 195. 7 MR. FREEMAN: What's the number, Larry? 8 MR. MYERS: 195. 9 MR. FREEMAN: 195. 10 All right, sir. Now, as I earlier mentioned, 11 you had gone through in some detail the medical records of 12 Doctor Coleman; is that correct? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. Now, I'm going to go through a number of 15 questions with you, sir, about what you knew and what you know 16 about Joseph Wesbecker, and if at any time during my 17 examination, if any of this material, according to your best 18 recollection -- and I'm not asking to give you a test, but 19 according to your best recollection -- and you can keep the 20 records of Doctor Coleman before you -- is included in his 21 testimony, I want you to let the jurors and the Court and 22 Counsel know. Would you try to do that for me, please? 23 A. I'm sorry, sir. I didn't grasp the last part of 24 your sentence. If it's included in the records? 25 Q. For example, you made a reference I think the 148 1 first day that you testified to certain things that were 2 important to you that related to Mr. Wesbecker's childhood; do 3 you remember that? 4 A. I remember talking about his childhood and 5 trying to get some anchor points in it; yes, sir. 6 Q. So by way of example, when I ask you -- and I'm 7 going to ask you this shortly -- is the fact that Mr. 8 Wesbecker's father was killed when he fell off of the roof of 9 a Catholic church known or shown in Doctor Coleman's records 10 -- or known to you is the way I'll put it, if it's not in 11 Doctor Coleman's records would you indicate it's not, if you 12 recall? 13 A. Oh, I see. So you want me to do two things; you 14 want me to indicate whether it's in Doctor Coleman's 15 records -- 16 Q. And if it was known to you. 17 A. -- and if it was known to me? 18 Q. Yes, sir. 19 A. Yes, sir. Sure. 20 Q. The first question, let me ask you this, do you 21 know that at the age of one, Joseph Wesbecker's father was 22 killed in an accident, an event that occurred at the Catholic 23 church, St. James Church rectory while he was there working? 24 A. Yes, sir. I think I mentioned it in my 25 testimony. 149 1 Q. Is that reflected in Doctor Coleman's notes? 2 A. No. 3 Q. All right, sir. Now, do you know, sir, whether 4 or not Joseph Wesbecker by way of religious faith was a Roman 5 Catholic? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. Do you know whether or not his father was killed 8 at the church he attended as a child or at some other church? 9 A. No. I don't know, sir. 10 Q. Do you know whether or not at the age of two 11 months his grandmother who he later lived with was confined to 12 the General Hospital, having threatened suicide and threatened 13 her husband's life? 14 MR. SMITH: His grandmother? That's an 15 inaccurate statement of the facts. There's no facts on that 16 now. It's inaccurate with respect to Ms. Montgomery. 17 JUDGE POTTER: Approach the bench. 18 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 19 JUDGE POTTER: Okay. I mean, Mr. Freeman, are 20 you going to have evidence at some point that the grandmother 21 was committed? 22 MR. FREEMAN: We are. 23 MR. SMITH: Not Ms. Montgomery. 24 MR. STOPHER: No. His other grandmother. 25 MR. SMITH: Can I have one at a time? 150 1 MR. FREEMAN: This is his grandmother on the 2 Wesbecker side. 3 MR. SMITH: He said the grandmother he lived 4 with. 5 MR. STOPHER: He did live with her. 6 MR. SMITH: Are we going to go through -- can I 7 have a running objection to facts not in evidence? They 8 objected to my characterizing facts. I think they're probably 9 going to take him from age one to forty-two. 10 JUDGE POTTER: Well, my view is that they 11 anticipate putting into evidence -- not that it's going to 12 happen, but hopefully from their point of view your client 13 would say, well, if I knew this, this, this and this I'd 14 change my mind. 15 MR. SMITH: He's not my client. 16 JUDGE POTTER: I'm sorry. Your witness. 17 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 18 Q. Do you know that Mr. Wesbecker's grandmother on 19 his father's side was named Murrell Wesbecker? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. Do you know that Murrell Wesbecker was confined 22 to a mental hospital for treatment of threatening suicide and 23 threatening to -- threatening her husband's life and had 24 delusions of persecution; do you know that? 25 A. I didn't have that specific a data. I did know 151 1 that she was declared incompetent and I presume that she had a 2 psychiatric disorder. She may or may not. But, no, I didn't 3 have that detail. I don't know that that's true or false, 4 sir. 5 Q. All right, sir. Did you know that after she got 6 out of the hospital, that is, Murrell got out of the hospital, 7 that for a period of time she lived with and took care of 8 Joseph Wesbecker while Joseph Wesbecker's mother was at work? 9 Did you know that? 10 A. I'm not sure that I knew -- well, that's -- 11 we're talking about his paternal grandmother? 12 Q. Paternal. 13 A. Paternal grandmother. I'm just getting 14 grandmothers mixed up, paternal and maternal. And I know that 15 he was very, very close to one of the grandmothers, but I 16 think I'm getting mixed up. It was Nancy, I think, he was 17 close to. 18 Q. Yes, sir. That's his mother's mother. 19 A. I mean, that's who I know the most about, that 20 that relationship was very, very important. But I'm not 21 surprised that -- you know, Joseph had a lot of family around 22 him, as I mentioned earlier, that was taking care of him, but 23 I certainly didn't go into the details of which grandmother 24 was with him when, other than Nancy was with him a lot. 25 Q. I want to be quite clear of this. You have 152 1 indicated that the atmosphere in which a child lives is 2 extremely important in connection with what the child grows up 3 to be, haven't you, sir? 4 A. Definitely. 5 Q. I ask you, sir, did you know that Joseph 6 Wesbecker lived with Murrell Wesbecker at the age of six years 7 of age and that she was dragged out of the house screaming as 8 they were taking her to the mental hospital for life as a 9 lunatic? Did you know that, sir? 10 A. I don't have those details. Don't know if 11 they're true or false. 12 Q. That would not be helpful to a young person in 13 terms of his environment, would it, sir? 14 A. I don't know if he witnessed it. 15 Q. I will ask you to assume that he was there, 16 there alone with his grandmother when this happened. 17 A. It would be terrible. 18 Q. All right, sir. Now, going back a little bit, 19 you understood that in the early part after Mr. Wesbecker's 20 father died that he and his mother moved into the house with 21 the maternal, that is, his mother's mother? 22 A. Uh-huh. 23 Q. And her husband or his grandfather, the 24 Montgomerys; you knew that, didn't you, sir? 25 A. Yes, sir. 153 1 Q. Did you know, sir, that Joseph Wesbecker was 2 very attached to his maternal grandfather? 3 A. I've heard that. I haven't heard a lot of 4 testimony about it; I've heard it. 5 Q. But you've heard that? 6 A. I don't know how real that is, but, yes. It's 7 hard to reconstruct those years. 8 Q. Now, you will recall that I asked you earlier 9 about his father being killed on the job at the church; right? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. I now ask you did you know that his grandfather, 12 Mr. Wesbecker, was killed in a train accident when a passing 13 train got hold of his raincoat and jerked him under it, 14 mutilating him? Did you know that? 15 A. All I knew is that he died at the -- when Mr. 16 Wesbecker was two years old. That's what I know, sir. 17 Q. But you do recognize now we have two workplace 18 incidences where, as a child, two authority people are killed 19 on the job, do you not, sir? 20 A. Yes. That's very interesting. 21 Q. Now, while we're talking about on the job, will 22 you tell us -- and I'll ask Mr. Stopher and Myers to make a 23 list so I won't take up time, but depositions that you have 24 studied or even looked at that had to do with co-workers of 25 Joseph Wesbecker, and then we'll come back to this. 154 1 A. Let me see if I have a list. But James Lucas, 2 of course, was the individual that knew him the best, and so I 3 spent a lot of time looking at his deposition, and then I 4 looked at pieces of a variety of other people's depositions. 5 Q. First of all, give us, please, sir, so we will 6 know what depositions you have looked at in totality. 7 A. Okay. I have to go find that. I think I did 8 that already, but let me see if I can find my list for you. 9 Q. And then as you are doing that, if you will tell 10 us what -- 11 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, can we take one question 12 at a time? 13 JUDGE POTTER: One question at a time. 14 Q. All right. 15 A. Thank you. Because I gave most of this 16 information out I'm now having a little trouble locating where 17 that card was that I listed all the depos on. There were an 18 awful lot of them. Are we going to -- if we took a break soon 19 I could get organized and try to find them. 20 Q. If you would be kind enough to do that, I would 21 appreciate it. 22 JUDGE POTTER: Ladies and gentlemen, we have an 23 afternoon recess scheduled. As I mentioned to you-all before, 24 do not permit anyone to talk to or communicate with you on any 25 topic connected with this trial; do not discuss it among 155 1 yourselves and do not form or express any opinions about it. 2 We'll stand in recess till 3:30. 3 (RECESS) 155 4 yourselves and do not form or express any opinions about it. 5 We'll stand in recess till 3:30. 6 (RECESS) 7 SHERIFF CECIL: The jury is now entering. All 8 jurors are present. Court is back in session. 9 JUDGE POTTER: Please be seated. 10 Doctor, I'll remind you you're still under oath. 11 Mr. Freeman. 12 Q. Doctor Breggin, I apologize, but in the rush of 13 asking you questions earlier I misstated a name, which I do 14 from time to time, and I indicated to you that Mr. Wesbecker 15 -- what I meant to say -- Mr. Wesbecker's grandfather, John 16 Montgomery, who is his maternal grandfather, John Montgomery 17 was killed in a train accident. Did you know that, sir? 18 A. I understood what you were saying. 19 Q. You understood what I was talking about? 20 A. Sure. 21 Q. And you understood what I was talking about when 22 I was talking about Mrs. Wesbecker, that is, his paternal 23 grandmother, who he lived with at the age of six, who was 24 later taken to the mental institution, with him present, 25 screaming; is that correct? 156 1 A. Yes. It took me awhile to get that straight, 2 but, yes, I did understand it eventually. 3 Q. So he lived with his paternal grandmother -- or 4 she lived in the apartment with them, to put it absolutely 5 accurately, when Joe Wesbecker was six, and she was carried 6 away screaming to the mental hospital when he was six from 7 their apartment; you understand that that's what I asked you 8 about? 9 A. Yeah. I mean, that's a serious occurrence. I 10 don't see how it would produce violence in a young boy, but it 11 must have been scary, I would guess, it would almost have to 12 be real scary, but it's certainly not a predictive factor of 13 future mental disturbance by itself. 14 Q. Now, did you get to read the deposition of Alma, 15 the sister of Joseph Wesbecker? I'm sorry. I've got that 16 wrong. Strike that. 17 A. There are so many depositions, there are a 18 couple hundred -- two or three hundred. It's easy to get 19 confused by them. 20 Q. That's not correct. Let me see what I'm trying 21 to get here. Here we are. Now, did you know that Joseph 22 Wesbecker was a hard child to manage in terms of being spoiled 23 and having temper tantrums? 24 A. I heard and read some sections by his -- I guess 25 she was about two or three years older. I'm trying to 157 1 remember who this was exactly. It was like his aunt; it 2 couldn't be his aunt. 3 Q. It could be his aunt. 4 A. It was his aunt? And she was, like, two or 5 three years older than him. He's -- I don't remember -- five, 6 she's eight, and she is trying to remember and report on that. 7 I didn't take all that real seriously, sir. 8 Q. Did you take it seriously when he didn't go to 9 school and would hide in the garage? 10 A. I didn't hear about his hiding in the garage 11 but -- and I don't know who said that. Did she say that, too? 12 13 Q. It's my recollection, but I could be in error. 14 A. You know, clearly, that is not a good historian 15 remembering back to those early years. One thing you learn as 16 a therapist, that memories have a lot of different meanings 17 and things are often mixed up and backward, but I did know 18 that he didn't like to go to school. 19 Q. Did you know that Sister Josephine suggested 20 that he be put in an orphanage and taken away from his home in 21 1954? 22 A. Yes, sir. Uh-huh. 23 Q. Did you know that he was in fact put in an 24 orphanage for a period of time? 25 A. Yes. During the week, I understand, and went 158 1 home on the weekends with his favorite grandmom. 2 Q. Did you know when he was 12 or 13, talking about 3 the atmosphere in which he lived, that his mother tried to 4 commit suicide? 5 A. I don't recall any documentation abuot that. 6 Will you show me where that's from? 7 Q. We'll connect it up. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Did you know that in 1957 he became violent with 10 his mother and tried to beat her up? 11 A. I have no documentation that he actually tried 12 to beat up his mother. I don't remember that. 13 MR. SMITH: We're going to have to object to 14 this. Counsel had better tie this up. We dispute this 15 testimony. 16 JUDGE POTTER: Approach the bench. 17 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 18 MR. SMITH: Mrs. Wesbecker has testified and she 19 mentioned nothing about that, and they had the opportunity to 20 ask her about that. 21 JUDGE POTTER: I'm assuming, Mr. Freeman, for -- 22 I tell you, why don't we start phrasing the questions this 23 way, "Do you have any evidence that," and then if he says yes, 24 you go on; if he says no, you can say, "Would you be surprised 25 to find out." But I'm assuming that with each of these 159 1 questions there's going to be evidence at the end of this case 2 that will support a finding that they're correct. 3 MR. SMITH: Our position is they're not going to 4 be able to tie up half of this, and to do this with our expert 5 will indelibly imprint in the jury's mind a false impression 6 of this man's background. Ms. Wesbecker, remember, Your 7 Honor, was here, and not a word was mentioned to her or by her 8 concerning any violence. 9 JUDGE POTTER: And the evidence is going to be 10 that he beat up his mother? 11 MR. FREEMAN: In one of the depositions of one 12 of the children. It's in the outline that Mr. Stopher's 13 office made to that effect. 14 MR. SMITH: This is really putting us in a 15 prejudicial situation, Your Honor. When they had this lady 16 here they could have asked her. They have not introduced any 17 evidence whatsoever. I don't think they'll ever be able to 18 introduce any evidence. 19 JUDGE POTTER: I think you should stop phrasing 20 it -- particularly if it's a fact Mr. Smith doesn't agree 21 with, stop phrasing it "Did you know that," and then you can 22 ask him if he had any evidence that, or would he be surprised 23 if it ever came up. 24 MR. SMITH: Could we have an instruction to 25 Counsel and to the jury that the evidence is their contention 160 1 and that the jury is the judge of the evidence and that the 2 jury should keep in mind that these are not established or 3 proven? 4 JUDGE POTTER: As long as he states it as a 5 question and doesn't state "Did you know that," I think it's 6 all right and, "Mr. Smith, does your review show thus and so." 7 Ask him if his review has any evidence of whatever but not 8 state it as a fact. 9 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 10 Q. Did the material that you were provided supply 11 you with information -- 12 MR. SMITH: Again, Your Honor, we're going to 13 object to that. That puts it even worse on us; that makes it 14 look like we're hiding information from this Witness. That is 15 highly objectionable and puts us in a prejudicial position. 16 JUDGE POTTER: Objection is overruled. He's 17 talking about the material that he's reviewed. 18 MR. SMITH: No. The question was: "Were you 19 provided with any material." 20 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Smith, everything he's gotten 21 somebody provided to him, whether it was the federal 22 government or somebody gave it to him. 23 Go ahead, Mr. Freeman. 24 Q. Were you provided with any -- let me ask you 25 this: Do you have any knowledge that Mr. Wesbecker had a Ford 161 1 automobile convertible in 1959? 2 A. I got confused whether that was his friend's or 3 his, but I do remember some discussions of him driving a car 4 at a high speed at that time. I remember that. 5 Q. Along that line, were you provided with 6 information that Mr. Wesbecker would drive over 100 miles per 7 hour down city streets with his lights out on the wrong side 8 of the street during the year of 1958? 9 A. I think you're wrong about the lights out. I 10 read that section. Would you produce it, sir? I think that's 11 wrong. 12 JUDGE POTTER: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, 13 let me just say something here. Mr. Freeman is asking 14 questions. His questions are not evidence. Okay? This 15 evidence may or may not come in later. He's just wanting to 16 know if this gentleman took -- thought about this in reaching 17 his opinion, and if he did, he did; and if he didn't, he 18 didn't. And his questions are not evidence. Do you 19 understand what I'm saying to you? 20 Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Freeman. 21 Q. You understand that unless we connect what 22 questions I'm asking you with actual evidence of witnesses or 23 documents that that's not evidence, don't you, Doctor? You 24 understand that, as well, don't you? 25 A. I didn't understand what you said. 162 1 MR. SMITH: This would call for the Witness to 2 be a judge. 3 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Freeman, just go ahead and 4 ask him your questions. 5 Q. All right. Did you have information that Mr. 6 Wesbecker was put in jail for a sex offense involving two 7 young ladies for about ten days in 1958? 8 A. Yeah. I discussed that in some detail, and I 9 read the collateral information about it and pointed out that 10 the person who was there said that he did not participate, did 11 not threaten anybody. Nonetheless, of course, it's serious 12 that he was even there at all, but that it also wasn't a rape 13 in the opinion of the people who were involved. It was an 14 unfortunate incident, though. 15 Q. Were you provided any information or did you 16 know that Mr. Wesbecker during the '70s and early '80s had a 17 great interest in making and saving money? 18 A. I actually am a great admirer of his capacity on 19 what wasn't a very large salary to buy three homes over a 20 period of years, to invest in the stock market and to make 21 money. I did not view that as pathology, sir. 22 Q. All right, sir. So the answer to that question 23 is yes? 24 A. Well, not to that question, but to that question 25 the answer would be no because he wasn't the way you described 163 1 him. You described him as sort of pathologically interested 2 in money, when the man was extremely good in the handling of 3 money. It's kind of hard to understand how he could have 4 accomplished what he did. He ends up with a large bank 5 account, he's bought homes. This man is very good about 6 money. To call that pathology, there's no basis to that. 7 Q. I asked the question: Did you know that he had 8 a great interest in making money in the 1970s and early '80s. 9 Did you know that, sir? 10 A. "Great interest" sounds strange. What I know is 11 that he was very effective at saving, at investing and very 12 wise, from what I can tell, you know, and very good at it. 13 Q. All right. What was the first date that you 14 have in your information where he made complaints about his 15 job specifically with working on the folder and in making him 16 nervous? 17 A. Oh, gosh. I don't know if I can pull that right 18 out of my memory, but it certainly goes back fairly early, you 19 know, to his working at Standard Gravure. 20 Q. '75, '76, be a fair time period? 21 A. Possibly. I'm not certain about that particular 22 detail, sir. 23 Q. All right, sir. Did he, in the history that you 24 got, tend to cut people off, such as not speak to his mother, 25 such as not speak to his father-in-law, such as not speak to 164 1 his son Kevin, over long periods of time, for years in some 2 instances? 3 A. Well, the situation with Kevin is a little 4 different than that. I mean, I'm not sure who cut who off. I 5 mean, Kevin did not call his dad, either. They had a dispute 6 over Kevin dropping out of college, Kevin living or at least 7 being with a woman rather than going to school or starting to 8 work. I did not view that as a pathological rejection of his 9 son. A lot of parents would get pretty upset about having all 10 that hope for their child. And he was also upset that his son 11 didn't get treatment for scoliosis. And although I haven't 12 seen his son, I specifically asked did he look like he had 13 serious scoliosis, and I was told that he did. And if I were 14 a father and my son had scoliosis and didn't get surgery, 15 which, incidentally, sir, is 100-percent corrective, 100 16 percent, and not very high risk. Well, it's major surgery but 17 it's very effective. And for him not to get that surgery, for 18 him to drop out of school, you know, I can understand that 19 Dad's being real upset. As a dad, it would be good if he had 20 reached out more, maybe, but the son wasn't reaching out, 21 either, is my impression. 22 I think to say it's a cutting off makes it look 23 too arbitrary. There's a conflict there. And interestingly 24 enough, if you look at the issues, in each case he's concerned 25 about his son. It's not like he cuts off his son because his 165 1 son is not doing anything. I mean, he's concerned that the 2 boy is ruining his physical health and his life. I think 3 Kevin turns out real good as a human being, though, from what 4 I can tell. 5 Q. When did his son Jimmy start exposing himself to 6 others? 7 A. I think the problem goes back to early teens, 8 12, 13, 14, somewhere around there. 9 Q. Would you be surprised if it was as early as age 10 10? 11 A. That's pretty close to 12. No. I wouldn't be 12 terribly surprised. 13 Q. In a child or person that you particularly care 14 about -- first, let me ask you this. 15 From the history that you have obtained and 16 testimony you have read, was Joseph Wesbecker closest to his 17 son Jimmy, that is, seemed to care about him more? 18 A. Yes, sir; he was. 19 Q. In the -- 20 A. I don't know if he cared about him more. He 21 made a great deal of effort to help that boy out. He behaved 22 in a much more involved fashion. What went on in his heart, I 23 don't know. 24 Q. In the experience of the everyday person, is it 25 more or not upsetting for somebody that you care a lot about 166 1 to do something that is so humiliating as to expose themselves 2 to ladies all over town? 3 A. I'm having a little trouble, sir, with the way 4 -- no criticism; I'm just having a little trouble 5 understanding. You're asking me if you care more about your 6 son, would it be more upsetting if he did things that were 7 humiliating? 8 A. Like exposing himself to ladies here in 9 Louisville. 10 A. I mean, that's a hard judgment to make. I mean, 11 the more you care and love another person, the more you have 12 an empathy for them. You can say you would be more upset, but 13 not necessarily more humiliated. The more you love someone, 14 the more you identify with them, you're empathic and you're 15 supportive with them. It seems to be the way he was with his 16 son in a most remarkable fashion, I must say. 17 Q. Did you happen to read the deposition of Charles 18 Miller, one of his co-workers? 19 A. No, sir; I don't believe so. 20 Q. So you have no evidence about Charles Miller 21 describing him in his deposition as a vindictive-type person? 22 A. I do remember that being mentioned. I have a 23 lot of data from your experts, a huge book from Doctor 24 Granacher, which covers a great deal of everything that you 25 feel, or at least that you see as being negative in the 167 1 background. So I did have a large amount of information from 2 the depositions of your experts, and I didn't feel I had to 3 necessarily go back and track everything down. 4 Q. All right, sir. Did you read the deposition of 5 Rodger Coffey, C-O-F-F-E-Y? 6 A. I don't think so. 7 Q. All right, sir. While we're on that subject, 8 while you were at a break, did you get for us the names of the 9 depositions that you were provided in whole and then the 10 synopses that you were provided in part; first of all, those 11 that you were provided in whole of co-employees? 12 A. I did my best, but let me explain that in the 13 last few days I've been in an office piled with depositions, 14 and when there's been something important I've gone and looked 15 to see if there was some data, for example, on this issue of 16 whether he was driving without his lights on, and I remember 17 checking and I didn't see driving with his lights on. I could 18 have misunderstood. So I don't know of everything I've seen 19 because I've been in a room with mountains, several hundred, 20 probably, depositions. But these are the things I'm certain 21 about. 22 I read the deposition of Robert Granacher, who 23 is a psychiatric expert for Lilly; Catherine Mesner, who works 24 for Lilly; James (sic) Schwab, who -- 25 Q. Just a minute. I thought I made the question 168 1 plain. I asked you for the names of the depositions of 2 co-workers. 3 A. I misunderstood. 4 Q. I'm sorry. I apologize. Maybe I wasn't clear 5 enough. Of co-workers that you have read, of Mr. Wesbecker's 6 co-workers in whole. 7 A. Among the 30 or so depositions, not a lot on the 8 co-workers. I read completely James Lucas, who knew him well. 9 I read partials, at least, of John Tingle and Paula Warman and 10 Donald Frazier and Mr. Conn. And then through the inquest 11 materials I had the reports from other co-workers, Mike 12 Campbell, Andrew Pointer, Charles Gorman and Gordon Scherer. 13 Q. Do you have those with you, sir, here, so as to 14 be able to produce them? 15 A. I don't know what exactly. I have the 16 inquisition here -- I keep calling it the inquisition. 17 Actually, they call it the inquisition on the cover, but 18 inquest is the better word. But I think that these vast 19 amounts of depositions may be back at the office, but you 20 would have to ask someone else, sir. I couldn't have carried, 21 myself, all those depositions; that would have been a physical 22 impossibility. 23 Q. While we are here, I would like to have your 24 card index marked as an exhibit, please, sir. Are these all 25 of the cards that you have on this case? 169 1 A. Yeah. Now, I may want to use the ones -- 2 Q. I'm not going to take them away from you. 3 A. You're certainly welcome to mark it. I just 4 want to make sure it's got all the cards in it. 5 Q. I saw -- did you get the one out of your pocket 6 that you put in your right pocket this morning? 7 A. I don't have anything in my right pocket; let me 8 check my left pocket. Oh. Materials received that I couldn't 9 find. I should be watching me the way you are. 10 Q. I just noticed you making notes this morning 11 while you were standing there talking to Ms. Zettler and some 12 others, and when I looked around I saw you slip it very 13 carefully into your pocket, so it maybe raised a little 14 interest in me in view of your former testimony here. 15 A. No, sir. I just need someone like you following 16 me around telling me where I stick things. I looked 17 frantically for this materials-received card. But there it is 18 in my left pocket. I have a newspaper clipping here and then 19 I have my wallet and my keys. 20 Q. I'm not going to ask you how much money is in 21 your wallet, but, anyway... 22 Now, will you please put those in the exhibit 23 that has now been marked? 24 A. I'm holding out -- here, this is not -- this was 25 not in the original box, but it certainly can go in there. 170 1 Q. Which is that one? 2 A. This one. You remember I stumbled over the 3 names of the people who were involved in the alleged sexual 4 incident, and then I just made sure I got them right. 5 Q. That's when Mr. Stopher asked me to ask you who 6 Rebecca Blossom was; is that right? 7 A. No. I don't think you did that, but, at any 8 rate, I had Blossom wrong, and I think I'm still going to get 9 it wrong because I can't read my writing. Bloom -- Broome, 10 B-R-O-O-M-E. That's who I was referring to from my memory as 11 Blossom. 12 Q. And when you referred to that lady, in what 13 context did you refer to her? 14 A. That she had said that he had been holding this 15 broken starter pistol while two young men were having sex with 16 two young women for this initiation rite into their group, and 17 she wasn't there. The person who was there, Mr. Conn, had 18 said, "No such thing; the pistol was mine, it was in my car." 19 But these are long retrospective back-to-childhood 20 descriptions. 21 Q. There was no gun involved in that incidence, 22 according to your best understanding, isn't that true? 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. All right, sir. Now, let's move along, sir. 25 And I believe that later on Mr. Wesbecker and his first wife, 171 1 Sue, got a divorce. That was reported to you, was it not? 2 A. Oh, yes. 3 Q. And was this a rather traumatic occasion for 4 him? 5 A. Oh, yes. I think it was a very painful 6 occasion. As I discussed with you earlier, it is, you know, 7 one of the most painful things that people go through in their 8 lives. 9 Q. Do you have quickly that you can refer to or do 10 you want me to get my copy of the 1980 hospitalization? 11 A. Hospitalization? No. But why don't we proceed 12 without it. Perhaps my memory will be okay. If I feel I need 13 it... 14 Q. He was put in the hospital for psychiatric 15 reasons, was he not? 16 A. Well, yes. First he's having -- yes, sir. 17 Q. He was diagnosed as having depressive neurosis 18 secondary to situational adjustment reaction to adult life, 19 was he not? 20 A. Exactly. 21 Q. He complained on admission of being bitter over 22 the recent divorce, could not stay still at work? Could not 23 stay still at work? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Anxious? 172 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q. Cried for no reason? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Felt sorry for people and himself? 5 A. I certainly -- I can't remember the details, but 6 it sounds like what was going on at that time. 7 Q. Severe problems with sleeping? 8 A. Yes. I can certainly believe that. 9 Q. And complained about Valium green pills he had 10 taken three times a day? 11 A. Yes. He had been taking pills for I think 12 physical pain. He had pulled his muscle in his back. Valium 13 is a drug that is often -- the medication is often given by 14 general physicians for back spasm, and it appears as if he was 15 given that and it may have caused him some problems. 16 Q. Do you have the information that in 1982, while 17 living on Mount Holyoke -- I guess I'm saying that right, 18 H-O-L-Y-O-K-E. 19 A. I would not be better at pronouncing it than 20 you, sir, but I assume Holyoke. 21 Q. Holyoke is what I -- how I would pronounce it -- 22 while he was living with his second wife, Brenda, of trying to 23 commit suicide? 24 A. Yes. I believe so. There are two suicides that 25 we know of -- attempts that we know of, and that may have been 173 1 one of them. 2 Q. Were you provided the deposition of John Tingle? 3 A. Yes, but I only had time to do segments of it. 4 Q. All right, sir. Did you do the segment of Mr. 5 Tingle's deposition wherein Mr. Tingle reported about his 6 first wife, Sue, that Mr. Wesbecker had said, quote, I'd just 7 as soon go out and kill her; that's the way I have to pay her 8 for the rest of my life. Do you remember reading that? 9 A. No. I don't remember reading that. I'd be 10 happy to look at it and see the context. But I looked 11 specifically at Mr. Tingle's description of Mr. Wesbecker 12 during the tragic murders. That's the way I was looking at 13 it, to see how he evaluated what was going on with him. 14 Q. All right. Do you have the information that in 15 1982, July of that month, that he went over to Sue's house 16 after a conversation about taking Jimmy out of Boys Haven and 17 hit her two or three times across her face, causing her to 18 fall to the ground? 19 MR. SMITH: We object to that. Ms. Chesser has 20 been here and testified that he did not hit her two or three 21 times but hit her once. It's a misstatement of the facts. 22 JUDGE POTTER: Ladies and gentlemen, remember 23 the evidence that's in and there may be more evidence. I 24 don't know. 25 Go ahead, Mr. Freeman. 174 1 Q. Were you given that information? 2 A. I was given the information that he struck her 3 once. 4 Q. Okay. Amend it to say struck her once in case 5 I'm mistaken; will you do that for me, sir? You have the 6 information that he struck her at least once? 7 A. Yes, sir. And on two occasions. 8 Q. And on two occasions. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Now, Boys Haven, where his favorite child was, 11 what is that? 12 A. I don't know the details on that particular 13 facility, but I do know that his son began to be put into 14 facilities for difficult and upset children and culminating 15 ultimately in adult psychiatric hospitals and even jails, but 16 I can't tell you the specific nature of any detail of that 17 particular facility. 18 Q. If it had been upsetting to Mr. Wesbecker to be 19 placed in an orphanage, would it be upsetting to him to have 20 his child placed in a mental institution or correctional 21 institution by the name of Boys Haven? 22 A. Oh, sir, I think it would be upsetting to have 23 your child put in an institution even if you had an ideal 24 childhood, so I don't think we even need to wonder about 25 connections to childhood. It would be very upsetting, and the 175 1 parents I deal with are very upset about that regardless of 2 their background. He was very attentive; he never rejected 3 that young man. 4 Q. And he's to be commended for that. 5 A. It's actually very impressive, because I work 6 with families so often where you can't get the parents to take 7 responsibility for their children. Even in the suburbs of 8 Bethesda, where parents are supposed to be doing things right, 9 well, they don't, often. So one of the things I work with a 10 lot is trying to help parents be more responsible toward their 11 kids. And it's impressive to see him behave that way. 12 Q. Would it be upsetting to him and were you 13 provided with this information, for his son James for this 14 exhibitionism, to be confined for psychiatric treatment for 84 15 days at Norton Hospital? 16 A. Yes. Of course it would be. It wouldn't make a 17 murderer out of anyone or we would have hundreds of thousands. 18 Do you know right now the hospitalization of children is in 19 the hundreds of thousands a year in the United States. I've 20 not heard it's turned anybody into a murderer, sir. 21 Q. Yes. And we have 15 million people taking 22 Prozac, also. Now, let me ask you this question, please. 23 A. Isn't that the total for the people taking it up 24 to date? That's different from people taking it. I was 25 confused about that data. That's the cumulative data? 176 1 Q. I'm not answering the questions. 2 A. Excuse me. 3 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, he's entitled to get a 4 clarification of the question. 5 Q. Fifteen million people up to date. 6 A. Yes. Thank you. 7 Q. Now, let me ask you, please, sir, if you had an 8 occasion to read a social worker who was trying to help the 9 family with James's problems by the name of Ann, 10 D-E-T-L-E-F-S, Detlefs. 11 A. It sounds familiar but I would need refreshing 12 on it, sir. 13 Q. Do you have the Children's Treatment Center 14 report that she made about Mr. Wesbecker in 1983 -- '82, '83? 15 A. I'm not certain that I do have that. That's one 16 document I'm not certain that I have. I can't recall. 17 Remember, I've seen so many documents, but I don't recall 18 that. 19 Q I believe the report is dated '84. You don't 20 have that in mind? 21 A. Could you show it to me? That might help me. 22 Q. I'll get it for you in just a minute if we can 23 find it. Can you find it right there? Let's put an exhibit 24 number on this so the jurors will know what we're referring 25 to. 177 1 MR. SMITH: Can we have a copy, also, please? 2 MR. FREEMAN: Be happy to. Why don't you look 3 at it, Paul, before he testifies. 4 A. Is this a part of the medical record? Was it 5 separate? 6 Q. It's part of Jimmy's medical record. 7 MR. SMITH: May we approach the bench, Your 8 Honor? 9 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 10 MR. SMITH: These records appear to be Jimmy 11 Wesbecker's records. I don't know how they got them. I'm 12 just thinking of, you know, of course, it's triple or 13 quadruple hearsay. 14 MS. ZETTLER: Plus, Your Honor, it was never 15 produced. 16 MR. SMITH: I don't think we've seen it. 17 JUDGE POTTER: One person at a time. Mr. 18 Freeman? 19 MR. FREEMAN: Yes, Your Honor. We believe it's 20 relevant for the purposes of describing Joseph Wesbecker's 21 mental state by a social worker who interviewed her -- who was 22 interviewing him. 23 JUDGE POTTER: Where's the first part of it? 24 MR. SMITH: I can't tell whether it's 25 interviewing him or Jimmy. 178 1 JUDGE POTTER: Is there an introductory to it or 2 something like that? 3 MR. FREEMAN: This was part of his 4 hospitalization, that is Jimmy's hospitalization. 5 MR. SMITH: We'd object to it. It's part of 6 Jimmy's hospitalization. It's quadruple hearsay. 7 JUDGE POTTER: I mean, do you want to go on to 8 something else? 9 MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir; I will. 10 JUDGE POTTER: Okay. 11 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 12 Q. Moving along, sir, so that we can try to get 13 through, here. Did you have any information that Mr. 14 Wesbecker made threats against Brenda's daughter, his 15 stepchild, Melissa, by saying that he hated her, "I just ought 16 to kill her"? 17 A. Yes, sir. I did hear that, that he made that 18 threat, one threat, I understand, sir. Yes. I'm not sure it 19 was a threat; he made that statement. There's a difference 20 between a threat and a statement. I did not get any sense 21 from talking with -- not talking with -- I feel like I've 22 talked with these people from the depositions. I didn't get 23 any sense from the depositions that this was a threat that, 24 for example, made his wife carry the daughter off and hide in 25 any very dramatic way. I didn't get a sense that this was -- 179 1 you know, I got the sense, you know, that it was something to 2 be very concerned about, as I would be anytime anybody said 3 something about that, but not a threat that I'm going to do 4 this. 5 Q. Did you see a written report to whom it may 6 concern from Doctor Hayes about the effect that Jimmy's 7 behavior had on Mr. Wesbecker? 8 A. I saw all those reports. I don't recall that 9 one offhand, but I did see all those reports. 10 Q. Would you be surprised if that report describes 11 Mr. Wesbecker as being devastated, heartbroken and depressed? 12 A. About what was happening with Jimmy? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. Of course not. I mean, that's enough to break a 15 parent's heart. 16 Q. Did you have information that Mr. Wesbecker said 17 to his wife, Brenda, about the Standard Gravure, "Can you 18 imagine if you can fly an airplane into something with 19 dynamite on it, fly it in there and blow it up and you'd never 20 be involved"? 21 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, I object to that; that's 22 not a characterization of any threat against Standard Gravure. 23 That statement is taken totally out of context. 24 JUDGE POTTER: Why don't you put it in context, 25 Mr. Freeman. 180 1 Q. Did you have any information that at any time or 2 place Mr. Wesbecker talked about flying an airplane into the 3 tank above, into some portion of Standard Gravure, a model 4 airplane into the building with dynamite on it and blowing the 5 whole place up? 6 A. I certainly knew that he had said that; yes, 7 sir. 8 Q. Did you have that information as early in his 9 medical and other history as of 1986? 10 A. It wasn't clear to me whether it was '86 or '87. 11 I know that I didn't see confirmation of what you're saying, 12 but I did see mention of it in maybe one of your expert's 13 histories. What I'm familiar with is his saying something 14 like that to Mr. Lucas. I'm familiar with that. 15 Q. All right, sir. And you don't know how long he 16 had had that in mind, Mr. Wesbecker had flying that model 17 airplane into the place and blowing it up in mind? 18 A. I think it's at least a year or around a year or 19 something beforehand that I recall that he mentioned that, but 20 I'm not certain. 21 Q. Is that conduct in terms of saying something 22 like that or -- strike that. 23 Are you familiar with his 1984 hospitalization? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Are you familiar that he was treated by Doctor 181 1 Senler? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that at that time 4 he had tried suicide on two occasions immediately prior to his 5 being hospitalized? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. The first time he tried to overdose, that is, to 8 kill himself with his antidepressant that he was taking; is 9 that correct? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. And what was the antidepressant that he was 12 taking that he tried to kill himself with? 13 A. Norpramin, sir. 14 Q. Sir? 15 A. Norpramin. 16 Q. All right, sir. And the second time he tried to 17 kill himself by taping a hose to his mouth and hooking it up 18 to the automobile while lying in bed with his wife; is that 19 correct? 20 A. I don't have the lying in bed with his wife, but 21 I did hear that he attempted. 22 Q. I may be confused about that. 23 MR. SMITH: May he have the ability -- have the 24 ability to finish his answer? 25 JUDGE POTTER: Let him finish. 182 1 Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead, sir. 2 A. I had heard about the carbon monoxide incident; 3 yes, sir. That's in the hospital record. 4 Q. Do you know how that incident occurred in terms 5 of where he was? 6 A. Don't remember the details except I don't think 7 he was in bed with his wife, but I don't remember the details. 8 Q. Did you read Doctor Leventhal's note about him? 9 A. Yes, sir. I probably require refreshing on it, 10 but I definitely read that. 11 Q. You remember Doctor Leventhal as describing him 12 as difficult to treat because he does not trust anyone enough 13 to engage in a psychotherapeutic relationship? 14 A. Yes, I do. 15 Q. Would that have made it particularly difficult 16 for Doctor Coleman? 17 A. Not necessarily, no. Doctor Coleman seemed very 18 comfortable with treating him with medication rather than 19 psychotherapy. 20 Your Honor, could I take a very brief break? 21 And I can go as long as is needed, but I wouldn't mind a very 22 short break. 23 JUDGE POTTER: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take 24 a 10-minute recess. As I mentioned to you-all before, do not 25 permit anybody to talk to you about this case, do not discuss 183 1 it among yourselves, and do not form or express opinions about 2 it. We'll take a 10-minute recess. 3 DOCTOR BREGGIN: Thank you, sir, very much. 4 (RECESS) 5 SHERIFF CECIL: The jury is now entering. All 6 jurors are present. Court is back in section. 7 JUDGE POTTER: Please be seated. 8 Doctor, I remind you you're still under oath. 9 Mr. Freeman. 10 Q. Doctor, if you need to refer to the portion of 11 the medical record on his last hospitalization of Our Lady of 12 Peace that took place between March 31st, 1987 and April 24, 13 1987, would you mind looking at it if you need it? 14 A. Yeah. I will if I need it. Let's see how I do 15 without it. 16 Q. All right, sir. On admission he complained that 17 he had blurred vision, headaches, blackouts, nervousness to 18 the extent that he couldn't function at work or at home and he 19 blamed that on a chemical called toluene; is that your 20 recollection? 21 A. Yes. That's certainly one of the issues for him 22 was the toluene. 23 Q. He reported impotence due to medication? 24 A. Yes, sir. Entirely possible. It's a very 25 common side effect of psychiatric medication. 184 1 Q. And unreasonable demands? 2 A. I'm sorry, sir. You interrupted me. Impotence 3 is a very common side effect of psychiatric medication. 4 Q. Reported unreasonable demands made upon him at 5 work? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. Felt that too much was expected of him? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Expressed much anger and agitation toward his 10 job? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. His face reddened when he discussed job 13 stressors? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. He stated he became so agitated with co-workers 16 that they would speed up the equipment at times to get back at 17 him? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. He reported in 1982, he tried the suicide which 20 we've covered and the pill overdose which we've covered? 21 A. Yes. The only two documented ones which we 22 have. 23 Q. All right, sir. And also he had a health-care 24 person come there and fill out a detailed report where they 25 asked him a number of questions, just to refresh your 185 1 recollection. 2 A. Thank you. 3 Q. This person was giving him an interview at the 4 time; it wasn't some doctor writing something down in a hurry, 5 was it? 6 A. Oh, sir, I don't know the details of how this 7 was conducted, but I do remember the material. 8 Q. And you do remember it's a part of the official 9 hospital record, don't you? 10 A. Oh, sure. 11 Q. And you do remember that it reports in there 12 that he -- on Page 2, how he reported how he felt about 13 himself? 14 A. Yes, sir. What in particular? 15 Q. It's in response to Item No. 4 under Section 3 16 on socioeconomic. 17 A. Uh-huh. I see that. 18 Q. All right, sir. And on the next page about his 19 work he was asked the question: "Have you ever felt like 20 harming anyone else," and checked yes. 21 "If so, yes, who? 22 "My foreman." 23 A. Yes, sir. I mentioned that earlier today, yes. 24 Q. "How? 25 "Any way. 186 1 "When? 2 "At work. 3 "When? 4 "At work." 5 Is that right, sir? 6 A. Yeah. Yeah. 7 Q. You're familiar with the fact that he went to 8 his foreman's office in an effort to shoot him, are you not, 9 sir? 10 A. I wouldn't put it that way, sir. 11 MR. SMITH: Objection. There's no evidence of 12 that at all. 13 JUDGE POTTER: I'm going to sustain the 14 objection. 15 Q. All right. And on the last page mood or affect, 16 anxious? 17 A. Sounds right. 18 Q. All right, sir. Now, there's a report about his 19 grandmother and other matters in that hospitalization, are 20 there not? 21 A. You'd have to refresh me on that kind of detail, 22 but I did go over the hospitalization. 23 Q. Well, there's family history about matters that 24 we have discussed earlier? 25 A. Sure. 187 1 Q. Now, after he was dismissed from the hospital or 2 left the hospital, which was it? Is this when he left too 3 early or when he was dismissed from the hospital, left against 4 medical advice or left without the doctor giving him 5 permission? 6 A. I don't recall. I'd have to refresh on whether 7 this was the AMA or not. 8 Q. It may have been the earlier one. I think it 9 was, but I'm not positive, either. 10 A. The AMA one is the second hospitalization, the 11 first one at Our Lady of Peace. That's the 1984 one. 12 Q. 1984. All right, sir. Now, since he was 13 discharged in 1987, do you have any deposition testimony or 14 other information about threats that he made against the 15 Standard Gravure or any of its employees before he went on 16 Prozac? 17 A. Yes, sir. There are some mentions of some kinds 18 of fantasies and angry feelings that he was having. 19 Q. Can you tell us who he made the threats to and 20 on what occasion? 21 A. Oh, I'd have to pull out some notes for that. I 22 can't offhand but there were several. I remember some. 23 Q. Well, tell me the ones you remember, please, 24 sir, and when. 25 A. Well, you mentioned already the issue of the 188 1 airplane, and there was the time when he brought to work, 2 scary, brought to work in a brown bag a pistol. That occurs 3 around '87, '88. Those are the ones I remember offhand. I 4 think those are sort of the outstanding ones. 5 Q. Of those recited in the nine or ten depositions 6 that you have discussed earlier here today, sir? 7 A. Are those discussed? 8 Q. In the nine or ten co-employee depositions that 9 you have discussed here today or other depositions that you've 10 discussed here today? 11 A. Yes. They're discussed in depositions; yes, 12 sir. 13 Q. All right, sir. Now, as I understand it, you 14 still as the initiating physician, that is, as the first 15 prescribing physician do not prescribe tricyclics? 16 A. That's correct. I don't start somebody on 17 tricyclics. 18 Q. You don't start anybody on Prozac, either, do 19 you, sir? 20 A. No, though I have had an occasional patient who 21 has said they wanted to try Prozac, there's so much 22 information out about it and publicity about it, and I have 23 said, "Well, I know a doctor who will do that for you. I'm 24 not against you doing what you wish to do. Keep coming here. 25 I'll work with you. And here are the side effects, here are 189 1 the dangers, but please do that." And a number of my patients 2 have done that, particularly in regard to Prozac, and in 3 almost every case they have then said -- they have then come 4 back to me and I have ended up prescribing for them in an 5 attempt to get them off the medication, so I do get involved 6 in that process. 7 Q. My last question to you, sir, is: And in those 8 instances you have continued your own patients on the 9 medication compound Prozac, fluoxetine hydrochloride, have you 10 not? 11 A. I have on some -- 12 Q. First, yes or no. 13 JUDGE POTTER: Please answer it yes or no and 14 then he can explain it. I think that's a yes or no and then 15 he can explain. 16 A. Well, it would be no to those occasions. I 17 mean, sometimes I have continued a patient on Prozac, yes. 18 Q. So the answer to the question is yes? 19 A. No. You said -- you were suggesting I thought, 20 maybe I misunderstood, those occasions like that's what I 21 always did, but I have on some occasions. 22 Q. On the occasions where a patient either came to 23 you with a prescription that had been written earlier and were 24 taking the medication Prozac -- 25 A. Yes, sir. 190 1 Q. You have continued them on occasion on Prozac, 2 have you not, sir? 3 A. Yes. 4 MR. FREEMAN: Your Honor, at this time that's 5 all we have of this witness. 6 JUDGE POTTER: Mr. Smith, any redirect? 7 8 FURTHER_EXAMINATION _______ ___________ 9 10 BY_MR._SMITH: __ ___ ______ 11 Q. Let me see if I understand, Doctor Breggin, are 12 you saying that you continue people -- have continued a few 13 people on Prozac indefinitely or is this in an effort to get 14 them off Prozac? I'm not sure that it's clear. 15 A. They have always wanted me to help them come 16 off, but they have felt either addicted to it or that the 17 withdrawal symptoms were too much or that they were afraid to 18 do without it, so they have come to me and said this doctor 19 got me started on, would you help me come off. And in some 20 cases it's been very difficult and has taken a long time. 21 Q. What kind of symptoms have they had that Prozac 22 was causing that they would request that you help them come 23 off of the Prozac? 24 A. Well, one example is a person who began to 25 wonder about her anger. She was more irritable and angry. 191 1 Another person tried to stop and crashed. It wasn't the 2 coming back of depression because, in fact, depression wasn't 3 her particular issue as much as anxiety. The doctor had given 4 it to her for anxiety and when she tried to come off she 5 crashed and got abruptly suicidal, and we went back and 6 tapered and started over again. Those are some of the 7 situations that I remember, and sometimes it's been relatively 8 easy. I mean, that's not the common response to coming off of 9 Prozac. And other occasions they were just tapered off and 10 there was nothing to it at all which is probably what more 11 commonly happens. 12 Q. But in each and every instance of that, the 13 patient was getting your assistance in coming off of Prozac 14 where they were having some problems with Prozac that required 15 your assistance? 16 MR. FREEMAN: It's leading and suggestive. 17 JUDGE POTTER: Sustained. 18 Q. Were there any problems that those patients 19 described to you in requesting your assistance? 20 A. Yes. In each and every case with Prozac, the 21 person has wanted to stop and has been unable for one reason 22 or another and has asked me to facilitate to help with the 23 stopping of the drug, yes. 24 Q. Do you have an opinion, Doctor Breggin, 25 concerning whether or not the label warning on Prozac is 192 1 adequate? 2 A. Oh, definitely not. 3 Q. In what respects does it not convey the risks 4 and hazards associated with the medication? 5 A. Well, it does not present the profile in one 6 place of agitation. That is very key. The physician, 7 remember I showed the chart with all the noise in it and 30 8 items, 20 items, which are meaningless, and lost in that is 9 the fact that all the basic side effects of significance with 10 the possible exception of skin and sexual disorder are of the 11 stimulant variety, so the physician doesn't get to just look 12 right at it and say, "Hey, this drug looks like amphetamine; 13 this looks like a stimulant drug," so that was one problem. 14 Another is that the -- it does not say to the physician as a 15 stimulant drug the way the BGA in Germany says, basically, 16 paraphrasing them that as a stimulant drug this company 17 increased suicide during the period of time before you get a 18 beneficial drug effect and, therefore, you need to treat with 19 concomitant drugs. It doesn't say that. 20 Q. Were you through? 21 A. Oh, no. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Continue then. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. In what other ways is the warning or the 193 1 labeling concerning the risks and hazards of Prozac contained 2 in the PDR -- the long sheets -- inadequate to convey the 3 risks and hazards to physicians and to their patients? 4 A. It does not say that we -- that in the clinical 5 trials as studied by Lilly there was a statistically 6 significant elevated rate of suicide attempts and that, 7 furthermore, most studies did not show any improvement in 8 suicide, setting up a very risky -- in suicidality setting up 9 a very risky situation. It did not point out, in other words, 10 that the drug can cause suicide. It did not say that. 11 Q. How about violent-aggressive behavior? 12 A. It didn't say that we have a disproportional 13 number of reports compared to even the rate that this drug is 14 used of violence, I showed you on the chart, and it doesn't 15 say that in fact there have been many, many clinical reports 16 in addition to that statistical analysis, reports of violence. 17 It does not say specifically this drug was not tried on very 18 suicidal patients. They were excluded. See, what's happened 19 with approving is that people think this is a drug that's good 20 for patients who were suicidal and there's no evidence for 21 that, and there's evidence that suicidal patients is the wrong 22 one to give it to. It did not -- yes, sir. 23 Q. Would a warning on suicide have been a benefit 24 for Joseph Wesbecker in light of his past history of suicide? 25 MR. FREEMAN: That's a question for Doctor 194 1 Coleman. We object. 2 JUDGE POTTER: Overruled. 3 A. In regard to two things, a warning would have 4 been valuable, one, since he had a known history of 5 suicidality a doctor could have been alerted, doctors in 6 general could have been alerted to the danger of giving a 7 person with that past history this drug, especially without 8 concomitants, but even with concomitants a danger because, 9 remember, concomitants are -- they're not the answer. 10 Concomitants are being given during the clinical trials and 11 there's still elevated suicidal attempts. We're not just 12 talking about suicidality or feelings, there's elevated 13 attempts during the control trials. Doctors were not warned 14 about that. In fact, Lilly did not, as far as I know, even 15 give that information to the FDA. Doctors were not told that 16 in addition to this drug not being tested the label doesn't 17 say not being tested on very suicidal patients, very suicidal 18 ones, that it wasn't tested on patients labeled manic 19 depressive or schizoaffective and that there would be an 20 increased risk. 21 One of the things they say in the label is that 22 patients prone to manic depressive disorder -- I don't 23 remember exactly the words but you might sort of bring out the 24 manic depressive. That's totally misleading. This drug has 25 proven statistically, unlike the antidepressant comparitor 195 1 drugs, caused mania in depressed patients with no history of 2 mania that is very significant. That means this is a very 3 potent drug in terms of agitation and mania, and that is not 4 in any way presented in the label. 5 And those are the main things, although I might 6 say this is such an important issue I might want to refresh 7 myself because I thought this through carefully. Perhaps you 8 have the summary I made or I can just check it myself. 9 Q. This is not the summary? 10 A. I have it. The only thing I left out, which is 11 extremely important, is that doctors should begin by using the 12 smallest possible dose, and in the depositions of the Lilly 13 doctors, at least one of them says, hey, we have learned to 14 look out for agitation and to start with the lowest dose. We 15 had to teach this to ourselves, he says, this is one of their 16 own experts. Not that Lilly told them. We had to teach to 17 ourselves something that no one taught to Doctor Coleman. 18 There was no one really to teach him that and he didn't even 19 have the 10-milligram dose available then. 20 Q. Do you have an opinion concerning whether or not 21 the 20-milligram dosage is too high in this drug? 22 A. Well, it's too high to be the only dose 23 available. 24 Q. All right. 25 A. Because what happened is that doctors ended up 196 1 asking their patients to empty into orange juice and only 2 drink half the orange juice, save the other half because 3 doctors began to catch on that it produced so much agitation 4 and so much disturbance in too many patients at 20 milligrams. 5 And we have a lot of material in the Lilly materials presented 6 to us how Lilly knew this for years and resisted it. 7 See, the problem was one reason this drug got so 8 popular was that a GP could just give that one 20-milligram 9 dose. He didn't have to go through the complications with the 10 doctors gradually raising the doses. Lilly said give 20; 11 that's it. It's simple, straightforward. It was a blessing 12 to patients who didn't know a lot, your GPs, your other 13 doctors and the patients were sent home with 20 milligrams. 14 The physicians were called for a lower dose so they could 15 control it better, and Mr. Wesbecker was not able to benefit 16 from that nor Doctor Coleman because the smaller dose did not 17 come in, and there's still no warning, even now, about try to 18 use the smaller dose, as far as I recall. 19 Q. Can you identify Exhibit 158, Doctor Breggin? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. What is that? 22 A. It's the summary I was looking for. 23 Q. Does that summarize the areas in which the 24 Prozac label is inadequate? 25 A. Well, it does. There's one other area that I 197 1 want to conclude with that is mentioned in here that I didn't 2 sufficiently express and that is that doctors to this day 3 don't know that Prozac was not approved as Prozac. Prozac was 4 approved as Prozac plus addictive sedative drugs. 5 Q. Now, why do you say that? 6 A. Up to one-third -- the data is not very clear. 7 I could only get one study where, by chance, Lilly had to say 8 how many patients were on concomitants and, as I recall, it 9 was about a third. That means that basically they were giving 10 two drugs. They were giving Prozac plus the possibility of 11 drugs for the control of daytime agitation and anxiety. That 12 might as well have been that they were marketing two drugs, 13 Prozac and then another drug, Prozac plus the drugs that were 14 given for sedation. I can't overemphasize the importance of 15 this because the doctors are thinking that Prozac's been 16 approved when what's been approved, what's been approved is 17 Prozac with the use of concomitants, so much so that in 18 Protocol 27 when Lilly isolated out the patients on 19 concomitants, there was no significant difference from 20 placebo. There was no difference from placebo and Prozac. 21 The difference is it required the addition of Prozac and 22 concomitants, so physicians just never learned how this drug 23 basically got approved. And that should be in the warning, 24 that this drug was approved on the basis of the frequent use 25 of other drugs. And these other drugs, incidentally, have 198 1 their own list of hazards, including addiction and mental 2 dysfunction. 3 Q. Is what you're saying here, they're describing 4 the treatment-emergent adverse experience incident in placebo 5 controlled clinical trials? 6 A. That's right. 7 Q. Is what you're saying that they're not 8 explaining that these treatment-emergent adverse events 9 occurred even when the clinical trials are employing 10 benzodiazepines? 11 A. Right. A more honest or informative headline 12 would have been treatment-emergent adverse experiences on 13 Prozac plus benzodiazepine anxiolytics. 14 MR. SMITH: All right. We would offer Exhibit 15 58, Your Honor. 16 MR. FREEMAN: We have an objection, your Honor. 17 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 18 MR. FREEMAN: First of all, it was never 19 exhibited to us. Second of all, it's just a demonstrative 20 rehash of his testimony. There's no basis to admit it and 21 it's not an official document and it hasn't been produced by 22 anybody; it's a summary of what he's just said. 23 JUDGE POTTER: Objection sustained. 24 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 25 Q. Doctor Breggin, do you have any opinions 199 1 concerning whether or not Eli Lilly and Company was negligent 2 in the operation, design and conduct of their clinical trials 3 on Prozac? 4 MR. FREEMAN: Your Honor, objection. That's a 5 question for the jury to answer. They can't be assisted by 6 him giving -- 7 JUDGE POTTER: You can ask it whether it 8 affects -- it can be rephrased. Go ahead, Mr. Smith. 9 Q. You can answer the question. 10 A. Again, because it's such an important issue I'm 11 trying to locate -- 12 Q. I simply asked you if you had an opinion. I bet 13 I know what your answer is going to be. 14 A. Yes. My opinion is that they were grossly, very 15 substantially deficient in the way they designed and carried 16 out and then reported these drugs. 17 Q. Do you have an opinion concerning whether or not 18 that was negligent, that they were negligent in carrying out 19 the trials? 20 A. Yes, sir; I do. 21 Q. And reporting the results of the trials? 22 A. They were negligent. 23 Q. Do you have an opinion, Doctor Breggin, 24 concerning whether or not Eli Lilly and Company adequately 25 informed the Food and Drug Administration of the adverse 200 1 events and true clinical picture of Prozac, fluoxetine 2 hydrochloride? 3 A. Yes, I do. 4 Q. And what is that opinion? 5 A. That they were negligent. They did not fully 6 inform in a variety of issues that I've covered in detail. 7 Q. All right. Thank you, Doctor Breggin. 8 JUDGE POTTER: Thank you very much, sir. You 9 may step down. You're excused. 10 Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take the 11 evening recess. Before I do that I want to just say a couple 12 other things. The first day we were here I said a lot of 13 things to you and because I just want to repeat it that 14 everybody appreciates that the November 4th is going to be a 15 Friday, that we're not going to be here because of the hotel 16 room reservations. I gave you-all a lot of information the 17 first day and some of it you probably remember, some of it you 18 don't, but I just thought I'd remind you of that fact that on 19 the Thursday before that we'll be treating it like a Friday. 20 Also, I guess maybe I want to apologize if I 21 seemed unsympathetic this morning when I was talking about 22 what might happen to jurors that don't obey the admonition. 23 In my own defense, I'll say I make a policy that the only time 24 I talk to the jury is when all the other parties are present 25 and the other jurors are here, so it prohibits me from having 201 1 any kind of pleasant fireside chat with any of you. So I have 2 to do it in that formal way. And so I don't want anybody to 3 think that I don't appreciate the sacrifice you-all are making 4 by being here. And maybe it was totally unnecessary because, 5 you know, if we'd just take a criminal case we trust jurors to 6 decide people's lives, whether they go to the penitentiary or 7 not. And on TV to suggest that we couldn't trust them not to 8 read a book, to me is a little inconsistent. So if you'll 9 take it in that vein, I meant to say, for example, about the 10 Pledge of Allegiance, it is also important even though we say 11 it over and over and over. Some people say it and really 12 don't think about it. 13 Okay. I'm going to take the evening recess 14 again. Do not permit anybody to talk with you or communicate 15 with you about this case. 16 (BENCH DISCUSSION) 17 MR. STOPHER: Your Honor, we would ask that you 18 include in your admonition tonight a request that they not do 19 any research on any matters in this case on their own. It may 20 be unrelated, but someone has reported to me that they saw a 21 juror make some notes and put them in her glasses case. It 22 may be a shopping list, but she tore it out of her notebook. 23 MR. SMITH: I saw that, too. 24 (BENCH DISCUSSION CONCLUDED) 25 JUDGE POTTER: My admonition is do not permit 202 1 anybody to speak to or communicate with you on this case or 2 any topic connected with the case, and again I emphasize that 3 includes people that are just interested in the case, it also 4 includes the news media. And I guess I don't have to say 5 this, but you-all shouldn't go out and try and find a magazine 6 or an article or any kind of -- gather information on your own 7 about this case. You're going to get it all from the witness 8 stand, so you shouldn't try and do any independent research 9 about this case or try and read any articles, even though you 10 may feel you're doing it in a positive way to try and better 11 inform yourselves, you'll get more than what you need to know 12 from the witness stand. 13 Do not discuss the case among yourselves and do 14 not form or express opinions about it. I'll see you-all at 15 9:00 tomorrow morning. 16 (JURORS EXCUSED AT 4:40 P.M.) 17 JUDGE POTTER: I'm just trying to clean up my 18 exhibits. I allowed Penthouse article in what number? The 19 medical records, the medical records are 194. 20 MR. MYERS: 195, sir. 21 JUDGE POTTER: 195 is the medical records and 22 it's my understanding that they're in -- provided, Ms. 23 Zettler, or somebody takes them home tonight and goes through 24 them. Let her take your exhibit home. The hard file was 25 marked, I don't know if it's in evidence or if there's some 203 1 dispute about what number it was, his stack of index cards. 2 MR. MYERS: 196. 3 JUDGE POTTER: All right. Somebody tried to 4 introduce 196 into evidence. 5 MR. FREEMAN: We're not going to introduce it, 6 Your Honor. 7 MS. ZETTLER: You're talking about the cards? 8 JUDGE POTTER: Can he have it back? 9 MR. FREEMAN: Yes. 10 MR. SMITH: Those cards cost me $40,000. 11 JUDGE POTTER: I should tell you, I told Doctor 12 Breggin when he went on the stand, anything he took to the 13 stand with him, the other side had a right to. So the only 14 exhibits that came in today were Plaintiffs' 160, and 161, 15 Doctor Coleman's records and the blood test. The Defendant 16 got the Penthouse article and the medical records, 186 and 17 195. 18 MS. ZETTLER: Right. 19 JUDGE POTTER: Okay. Thank you-all. 20 (PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED THIS DATE AT 4:55 P.M.) 21 * * * 22 23 24 25 204 1 STATE OF KENTUCKY )( )( Sct. 2 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )( 3 I, JULIA K. McBRIDE, Notary Public, State of 4 Kentucky at Large, hereby certify that the foregoing 5 Transcript of the Proceedings was taken at the time and place 6 stated in the caption; that the appearances were as set forth 7 in the caption; that prior to giving testimony the witnesses 8 were first duly sworn; that said testimony was taken down by 9 me in stenographic notes and thereafter reduced under my 10 supervision to the foregoing typewritten pages and that said 11 typewritten transcript is a true, accurate and complete record 12 of my stenographic notes so taken. 13 I further certify that I am not related by blood 14 or marriage to any of the parties hereto and that I have no 15 interest in the outcome of captioned case. 16 My commission as Notary Public expires 17 December 21, 1996. 18 Given under my hand this the__________day of 19 ______________________, 1994, at Louisville, Kentucky. 20 21 22 23 24 _____________________________ 25 NOTARY PUBLIC 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25