“So in your discussions with Dr. Vassar, what conclusions did you reach in regard to this phenomenal behavior?”
“We could reach none. It was completely unexplainable.”
“Dr. Perez, what do you mean by the word ‘unexplainable’?”
“I mean, there was no explanation for the child’s behavior that we could give with any degree of medical certainty.”
The lawyer hesitated. He weighed the wisdom of getting into the matter of Jungian archetypes at this point. Even though Vassar had suggested this as a possibility in her final entry, he finally decided to forgo raising the issue at all. It was possible that Dr. Vassar might have been more amenable to Jungian theory than Dr. Perez would be. Besides, the first rule in questioning any witness is: Never ask a question if you are not sure what the answer will be. He moved on to the next entry.
“On April twenty-first, there is an entry which reads: ‘the window seems to be her main goal … the glass pane presenting a barrier of prodigious heat … the fires of hell? … attempts to approach glass unsuccessfully as heat too intense … stumbles back, falls, weeps.…’ Did you have discussions with Dr. Vassar about this particular entry?”
“Yes, indeed. Many discussions.”
“Did you and she discuss the significance of this behavior?”
“Yes, we did.”
“And did you come to any conclusions?”
“We both felt there may have been a memory of an incident in which the child was trapped in some sort of enclosure and sought to escape, but the escape route was painful. So there was this contradiction of moving in a direction and being repelled by it at the same time.”
“Were the child’s parents questioned to determine whether or not such an incident existed in the child’s past that would account for such a memory?”
“The file indicates that the matter was discussed with the parents and with the obstetrician who delivered Ivy, but none knew of any event in the child’s past to account for such a memory.”
Assuming an air of grave concentration, Brice Mack continued in a carefully measured voice. “Dr. Perez, assume that a child was trapped in a burning automobile, but the windows were closed and the fire blocked that avenue of escape. Do you have a medical opinion as to whether this set of circumstances might produce a similar reaction to the one you observed in the case of Ivy Templeton?”
“Yes, conceivably, that would account for such behavior.”
“And to your knowledge, the patient, Ivy Templeton, had no history of having suffered the experience of being trapped in a burning automobile?”
“Yes, that’s correct.”
Brice Mack turned to the prosecutor.
“Cross-examine.”
Scott Velie rose with exaggerated slowness. His voice seemed tired, his manner sleepy.
He said, “As I understand it, you joined the Park East Clinic in 1966, is that right?”
“Yes.”
“The same year that the parents of Ivy Templeton sought help for their child?”
“Yes, it was in 1966.”
“What month did you arrive at the clinic?”
“It was in November.”
“Early November? Late November?”
“It was after Thanksgiving.”
“I see.” Velie pondered this a moment. “So that, in actuality, you commenced your internship only a few weeks before Ivy Templeton became a patient of Dr. Vassar’s?”
“Yes.”
“And yet new as you were to the psychiatric profession, you maintain that Dr. Vassar took you into her complete confidence on a case so unusual and unique that it defied categorizing?”
Dr. Perez licked his lips.
“Yes, that is correct.”
“Is it customary in the psychiatric field for psychiatrists to consult with their interns on cases of behavior so complex as to be, and I quote you, ‘unexplainable with any medical certainty’?”
“Dr. Vassar did so,” Perez answered simply. “She was a remarkable woman.”
“Well, how much did you actually participate with her on this case?”
“As I said before, we worked together very closely on it.”
“How?”
“After each session we would review the substance of what happened and what was said and discuss it.”
“And together arrive at conclusions?”
“Sometimes, when it was possible to do so.”
“Did you sit in on these sessions with the child?”
“No.”
“Were you with her at the apartment?”
“No.”
“Did you ever observe the child during one of her nightmares?”
“No.”
“Therefore you relied on what Dr. Vassar told you she had observed?”
“Yes.”
“Then, when you say you came to conclusions with, her, you’re basing your conclusions only on what Dr. Vassar told you she heard or saw?”
“Yes.”
The district attorney studied some notes and, after the full impact of his witness’ testimony had been absorbed by the jury, renewed his questioning.
“Tell me, Doctor, this matter of the child ‘appearing’ older during her seizures, of performing functions and displaying greater muscular skill and coordination than a child her age normally would—is there not a circumstance under which such behavior may be seen to occur, a circumstance which you as a psychiatrist should be quite familiar with?”
Seeing the perplexed look on the witness’ face, Velie went on, helpfully: “Is not hypnosis a fairly commonplace psychiatric tool in usage today among people in your profession?”
“Well, yes—”
“And is it not true that under a hypnotic trance a subject may be induced by suggestion to perform physical feats well beyond his normal capabilities during the wakened state?”
“Yes, but—”
“Thank you,” Velie interrupted. “You have answered my question.”
Brice Mack was watching the district attorney like a hawk, ready to strike, ready to ask Judge Langley to instruct Mr. Velie to permit the witness to give his questions the deliberate and careful consideration the jury required of an expert witness, but he held back, allowing the prosecutor to pluck half answers from the witness and preferring to await his own moment on redirect to fully explore the issues being raised.
Velie, meanwhile, had picked up Dr. Vassar’s notebook and was flipping through its pages.
“Turning now to the matter of the child’s groping motions toward the window …” He found the entry he was looking for. “‘… the window seems to be her main goal … the glass pane presenting a barrier of prodigious heat … stumbles back, falls, weeps …’ and so forth. I put it to you, Dr. Perez, isn’t it conceivable that if someone is trapped in a building during a blizzard and is seeking to escape through that window but is unable to touch it because the window was so cold as to hurt his hand, that this, too, might account for the kind of behavior described here by Dr. Vassar?”
“Well, you see.…”
“I’m only after a simple yes or no. Is it or is it not possible?”
“Well, it’s possible …”
“Thank you.” Velie flipped to the back of the book. “This final entry of Dr. Vassar’s, which, by the way”—Velie’s voice became pointed—“counsel for the defense seemed disposed to bypass, deals with Dr. Jung’s archetypes as a possible answer to account for the child’s behavior. What is the significance of her reference to Dr. Jung’s archetypes, Dr. Perez?”