The Measure of Madness:. Katherine Ramsland
I administered several other tests referred to as projective or unstructured personality tests. I gave him the House-Tree-Person drawings, the Rorschach (Inkblot Test) and the Thematic Apperception Test.1 Many individuals who appear psychologically healthy on the highly-structured I.Q. test reveal their psychotic thinking through these more ambiguous and unstructured tests.
Mr. Rakowitz’s drawings were weird and disturbing. He drew a tree floating in space. It was as if he literally was not grounded. He drew a frenzy of leaves representing his disorganized, chaotic thoughts. Normal people draw a house with a door and windows. He drew a greenhouse with a marijuana plant in it. “You have to draw something people live in,” I told him. He added a little line at the bottom and said, “Those are the steps to the basement.” It was as if he created an invisible basement where no one could find him or even see him. He was totally alone with his marijuana.
After we finished with the tests, I asked Mr. Rakowitz about his case. To my surprise, he referred to the victim as “some woman” that his ex-roommates had killed. I confronted him with the medical expert’s autopsy report but he told me he was not convinced that the body found by the police was actually Monika Beerle’s.
I then asked Mr. Rakowitz why he confessed. He told me that he made the tape under duress, that the officers had threatened to kill him if he refused. He said he planted hidden, yet obvious, errors in the confession to alert viewers to its falseness. He described specific instances of this, but his explanations made no sense to me.
I returned home and carefully watched the tape over and over, looking for these “errors.” I could not find any.
During the next session, Mr. Rakowitz told me that various people in the community were plotting against him. He was convinced that these people resented his divinity and his drug business. He said that both he and Monika Beerle had been placed in that apartment as part of a year-long plot to incriminate him.
Mr. Rakowitz described many other grandiose delusions. When I asked him to show me proof of his divinity, he said he did not have real physical proof until a few years ago when he looked at a certain picture. He recalled that, through divine intervention, he saw his own image emerge from the picture. The picture then morphed again into the image of a dog.
The next week, Dr. Schwartz and I sat down to discuss the case. We were both struck by Mr. Rakowitz’s illogical insistence on his innocence. All the physical evidence, including the self-incriminating video confession, pointed to his guilt. Yet, he maintained to both of us that the murder was committed by unidentified others.
“I think he did it,” Dr. Schwartz said, “but Rakowitz insisted he was innocent. He told me that Ms. Beerle’s murder was part of an orchestrated scheme to prevent him from forming the ‘Freedom Party’ and becoming President.”
Dr. Schwartz continued, “Rakowitz believes he was visited by angels. He told me that he is the Lord and was sent to help the homeless. And he uses strange numerological equations. He told me that 1996 is the year he’s meant to become President because the numbers in his date of birth somehow add up to that year.”
Mr. Rakowitz’s birthday was 12/24/60. I took out a piece of paper to add up the numbers, but could find no way that they added up to 1996.
“I’ve heard a lot of grandiose delusions,” Dr. Schwartz said. “But his might be the strangest.”
I concluded that Mr. Rakowitz was a paranoid schizophrenic who was psychotic, not only when I met with him, but also at the time Ms. Beerle was killed. I completed my report and sent it to the defense attorney. It was time for the prosecutor to hire his own experts. Months passed, and I became busy with other cases.
The trial finally took place in the State Supreme Court building in Manhattan in February of 1991. Mr. Rakowitz’s defense was that someone else had killed Ms. Beerle. Initially, he refused to permit his attorney to enter an insanity defense. He changed his mind the day before I was scheduled to testify. Then he allowed his attorney to put forth two diametrically opposed defense strategies: one, that he was factually innocent and had not killed Ms. Beerle and two, that if he had killed her, he was insane at the time.
Mr. Reimer called me that night to let me know of the abrupt change in defense strategy. I hung up the phone in shock. I had only a few hours to prepare for what turned out to be some of the toughest questions I would ever be asked on the stand.
The next morning, I got off the elevator and headed to the courtroom. The press was already there setting up their equipment. I sat on the wooden bench outside, nervously reviewing my notes and waiting to be called. Finally, a court officer came for me. I walked through the crowded courtroom to the witness stand and glanced over at the defendant. He was dressed neatly with his long blond hair neatly combed, but he still looked other-worldly. He grinned broadly at me, seemingly amused by the proceedings.
After I was sworn in, Mr. Reimer began the direct examination. Direct examination is when a witness is questioned by the attorney calling him or her as a witness. His questions about Mr. Rakowitz’s psychiatric treatment laid the groundwork for an insanity defense.
I explained to the jury that Mr. Rakowitz had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia years before his arrest. He had confided to the hospital staff that he could kill people with prayer. During his two previous psychiatric hospitalizations in Texas, he told staff that he had heard the voice of God.
I testified that the psychiatrist who treated him at Riker’s Island jail after his arrest also diagnosed Mr. Rakowitz with paranoid schizophrenia and had prescribed Thorazine, an anti-psychotic medication.
When Mr. Reimer asked me about Ms. Beerle’s psychiatric history, the atmosphere in the courtroom became charged.
“These are psychiatric records for Monica Beerle at Saint Vincent’s Hospital,” Mr. Reimer said, holding up the documents. “In attempting to come to your conclusion concerning the events in question in this case, did you in any way rely upon information that was contained in those documents?”
“Objection!” Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Mathis exclaimed.
“She can tell us what she relied upon and then you’ll have an opportunity to cross-examine her if I permit it,” the judge ruled.
“Can you tell us, specifically, what information [in her records] was germane to your evaluation here?” Mr. Reimer then asked.
Before I could answer, the prosecutor interrupted again. “Objection,” he said.2
The judge ruled that I could answer. I had mixed feelings about describing Ms. Beerle’s psychiatric records. I did not want to give the impression that I was blaming the victim for her own death, but her psychiatric records were valid sources of information for the jury to consider.
“She was suffering from a serious psychiatric illness,” I said. “She was hospitalized at least twice here in New York. And during these episodes she also became psychotic and behaved irrationally. She was prescribed Lithium—”
The prosecutor again interrupted. “Objection, your honor.”
“No, I’ll permit it,” the judge ruled.3
“She was found walking, I believe,” I continued, “on the Verrazano Bridge, and even in the hospital she had to be kept in seclusion…”4
Ms. Beerle’s psychiatric records put things in a new light. I glanced over at the jury and could see them considering the idea of two mentally ill people living together in the small apartment. It did not take a clinical psychologist to tell that it was a recipe for disaster.
Mr. Reimer then focused his questions on his client’s psychotic illness. I testified that Mr. Rakowitz referred to himself as the “New Christ.”
“What he sees as reality is not what we see as reality. It’s part of [his] psychosis,” I said. “The belief that people can influence your mind, [that] they put thoughts into your mind or make you have visions is a very definite symptom of schizophrenia.