5.Richard Frierson — Direct/Cross/Redirect
1,721 linesBOYD YOUNG: The State would call Dr. Richard Frierson.
RICHARD FRIERSON, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: If you'll have a seat over there, please. State your name, spelling your last name.
RICHARD FRIERSON: My name is Richard Lesesne Frierson, F-R-I-E-R-S-O-N.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. YOUNG:
BOYD YOUNG: Good morning, Dr. Frierson.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Good morning.
BOYD YOUNG: How are you doing?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Okay.
BOYD YOUNG: So can you --
THE COURT: You want me to tell the jury now?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. This is part of what we were discussing. In order to get the trial ready to go, when a person asserts a defense such as been asserted here, the Court can say I would like him evaluated on the Court's behalf. That has been done. This was the Court's evaluator. He is an expert in the field of psychiatry. He's done an evaluation, talked to numbers of people. He is here to help you consider testimony regarding capacity to conform, morally right from wrong, legally right from wrong, the issues y'all are tasked with. Dr. Frierson has performed an evaluation to that end for your consideration. Now, his testimony is not offered for other purposes. It's offered for that. And I wanted you to know that they keep talking about the State. This is the Court's evaluator. The Court is the State, the State is the State, the Defense is the Defense. This is the Court's expert.
BOYD YOUNG: May we approach?
THE COURT: You may. (Whereupon, a bench conference was held in the presence of the jury but out of the hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: Fair suggestion, both parties want me to suggest this. The fact that Dr. Frierson was selected by the Court, he's for y'all's consideration. I can't, as the Court, comment on facts, have an opinion on facts. Y'all are to make the determination of fact. We discussed that. I make rulings, legal, evidence in, evidence out, fair and unfair, those kind of things. You are task at the end when you are finally tasked and begin discussing the case will be to make a determination of fact. The Court's selection of Dr. Frierson does not vouch for, give him any more credibility, less credibility. He's not my guy. He's done an evaluation for y'all's consideration. Y'all will evaluate his opinions to that end, just as you will the other opinions of the other experts. So the fact that I'm telling you he's the Court's person to evaluate Mr. Jones in this case in no way impacts your decision on whether to consider his opinion better, worse. It's still up to y'all to consider the testimony he's offering because it's your job. My job is to assign him a task. I assigned the task, here he is. Fair enough?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
RICK HUBBARD: Thank you.
BY MR. YOUNG:
BOYD YOUNG: Dr. Frierson, can you tell the jury a little bit about yourself, your background, your history, where you work?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm a South Carolina native. I was born in Sumter, South Carolina, finished Sumter High School in 1980. I attended the University of South Carolina. I actually have a Bachelor of Music Degree that I completed in 1984. I completed my Medical Doctorate at USC School of Medicine here in Columbia in 1988. I then completed four years of residency training in general psychiatry in 1992 at William S. Hall Psychiatric Institute. I completed an additional one-year fellowship in forensic psychiatry at Hall Institute. I am Board Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in both general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. Currently, I am a professor of psychiatry at USC School of Medicine.
BOYD YOUNG: Do you also work for the Department of Mental Health?
RICHARD FRIERSON: We have a contract with the Department of Mental Health that I provide forensic evaluations at their request.
BOYD YOUNG: Is that part of your salary as a clinical professor or is it in addition to?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's a base fee that they pay per year.
BOYD YOUNG: But that's on top of your clinical professor salary they pay you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, that makes up part of it.
BOYD YOUNG: That makes up part of your total salary?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
BOYD YOUNG: But you do get paid for your time?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I get paid salary yearly.
BOYD YOUNG: Right. I know it's an odd question, it's --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm not paid by the hour.
BOYD YOUNG: Right. And you didn't do this work for free, it was part of your job?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I was assigned to do this evaluation.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, this evaluation that you've done and the amount of information that you've reviewed in this case, is it a lot, a little bit? How does that work?
RICHARD FRIERSON: This is the most information I have ever had to review in a criminal case in the 30 years that I've been doing my work.
BOYD YOUNG: And is part of your evaluation and assessment taking a social history?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. We rely on social workers to do that usually. In this case, I think that you provided some information. I also spoke with some of his family members.
BOYD YOUNG: And the Defense has provided you with a lot of information as well?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Provided you with social history reports, social history backgrounds from our social worker as well as questionnaires that y'all have filled out, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
BOYD YOUNG: And in order to do a full assessment of somebody and determine what may be going wrong with them, the social history is important, isn't it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Can you do a complete evaluation without having a complete social history?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, it's not going to be as good as if you have a complete social history.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. Now, you've seen Mr. Jones a number of times. Do you recall how many times you've met with Mr. Jones?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I've interviewed Mr. Jones on six occasions, for a total of 19 hours.
BOYD YOUNG: Do you have any idea how many pages of records that you reviewed in this case?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Several hundred thousand.
BOYD YOUNG: Ultimately, you came to an opinion regarding criminal responsibility, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And can you tell the jury what your opinion is as to criminal responsibility of Mr. Jones?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's my opinion that on the dates of August 28th and 29th of 2014, Mr. Jones would have been able to distinguish legal and moral right from legal and moral wrong and could recognize his actions as legally and morally wrong.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, that was your opinion based on all the evidence that you reviewed, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's my opinion based on all the evidence I reviewed, my interviews with Mr. Jones, my interviews with family members, all of the evidence I was provided.
BOYD YOUNG: And we've met and talked about this case a number of times, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, we have.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, in addition to the family history, did Mr. Jones have a family history of mental illness?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Does a family history of mental illness make somebody more likely to eventually have mental illness?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Specifically, with this case or just in general?
BOYD YOUNG: Just in general.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Does Mr. Jones have a history of child abuse and childhood trauma?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He has a history of growing up in a house where there was some domestic violence, so that would be considered, in my book, traumatic for him.
BOYD YOUNG: Does a history of childhood abuse and trauma make somebody more likely to develop mental illness later in life?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Certain mental illnesses, yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Does Mr. Jones have a history of adolescent marijuana use?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Does a history of adolescent marijuana use make somebody more likely to later develop mental illness?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Does Mr. Jones have a history of head trauma?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Does a history of head trauma make somebody more likely to develop later in life mental illness?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It can, yes.
BOYD YOUNG: In your initial notes -- and I'm starting to go through your report a little bit. I'm skipping ahead to sort of -- to Page 18 after your summary of the materials that you reviewed.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Okay.
BOYD YOUNG: And I think in the first little paragraph, you said that you reserved the right to alter your diagnostic opinion should further information become available, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And we've met and talked about Mr. Jones and your opinions about him and what you considered and -- I guess what I'm getting at is we had a conversation about Mr. Jones' symptoms and what would happen if he was unmedicated, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't --
BOYD YOUNG: Let me rephrase the question. Mr. Jones was medicated at all the times that you met with him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: He was not symptomatic any of the times that you met with him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's correct.
BOYD YOUNG: And I believe, what you told me was that if he was unmedicated, became symptomatic, the symptoms were verified, that could alter your opinion?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. Depending on what the symptoms were and how they were described and how an evaluation would lead to a diagnostic finding.
BOYD YOUNG: Sure. A couple of other things before I get further into your report. The issue about hyper-religiosity, is that something that's common to schizophrenics?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Persons with schizophrenia can become hyper-religious, yes. Not all, but some.
BOYD YOUNG: And while it's -- it's your opinion that Tim Jones should or had the capacity to know the difference between legal and moral right from wrong at the time of the act, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: At the time of the alleged offenses, yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Or at the time of killings? I mean, he admits to killing his kids?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And he has never denied that to you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Denied what?
BOYD YOUNG: That he killed his kids?
BOYD YOUNG: But you told me -- I believe what you said was he felt morally justified?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, in his decision-making about -- are we talking about Nahtahn or are we talking about the other four children, because they're different.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. Well, can you tell us about the differences?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Okay. He reported to me that the death of Nahtahn was accidental, that he was exercising him to try to get him to confess to blowing an electrical outlet and maybe some other outlets in the house, and Nahtahn would not confess. And he exercised him, he spanked him and he sent him to his room, to bed early because he wouldn't confess. And then he went back -- he's told me two different versions of this. One was that he went back in and found him dead. The other was that he went back and shook him and he just collapsed, but he did not intend, in his words, to kill Nahtahn.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. And then as to the other four?
RICHARD FRIERSON: As to the other four kids -- it would be helpful for me to refer to --
BOYD YOUNG: Please do.
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- my notes. After Nahtahn died, he reported that he went into a mad panic, what am I going to do. He did not have thoughts that Nahthan wanted to harm him until the outlet was blown. Earlier that day, he had no fear of Nahtahn or thought Nahtahn wanted to hurt him. But once he found the outlet blown and Nahtahn wouldn't confess, the fact that Nahtahn would not confess, in his mind, he thought Nahtahn was hiding something. So after he died, he went into a mad panic. He said, I considered calling 911, but they'll think I did it. They're going to say I killed him. He reported telling Merah and Eli that I think he's dead. And he stated that Merah said that Nahtahn was not breathing. He then sent Merah and Eli to watch television in the living room. And -- I asked him, you know, do you think possibly you disciplined Nahtahn too harshly? And he said, yes, but I had no intention to kill him. He then went to smoke a cigarette and calm himself down.
He tried to smoke spice, he told me, and it was not working. You know, I've interviewed him several times and gone over what happened. In September of last year during my interview, he told me he used spice after Nahtahn died. In March of this year, he denied using spice after Nahtahn died and said he didn't use spice until after the death of the other four children. Then according to phone extraction records, about 8:30 that night -- he said Nahtahn had already died. He did a YouTube search, a YouTube search for a video called American History X Rape Scene. This was done at 8:30 p.m. at night. He had seen this movie previously. He told me -- he reported he watched this scene and thought I am going to prison and they're going to do bad things to me. Inmates will think I'm a baby killer. I asked him, do you think they would -- tell me more about that. And he described that because of people who molest children or people who kill children that other inmates tend to target them.
And I asked, why. And I asked, do you think they would be morally outraged and that's why -- because they're not law enforcement. And he said, yes. He then said he went to a convenience store about three minutes from his home and purchased cigarettes, that Merah went with him. Eli chose to stay home. The other two children had already gone to bed. He states that he purchased ten packs of cigarettes at the convenience store and drove home. A receipt indicates that this occurred at 1:50 in the morning, although he thought -- his time is a little bit distorted when he describes this. He thought that was much earlier in the night than 1:50 a.m. He says that on the way home, he heard a demonic voice, which is how he described it in September, and then in March said a creepy, gremlin voice that told him to kill the kids. He
described the voice as being inside of his head, being very brief and not prolonged. During the September interview, he reported that he went back to the trailer and smoked. I knew I had schizophrenia. I'm psychotic. I thought it was better for me to take their lives. I cut off their windpipes, kissed them and took their life. He said, I'm not a murderer. I'd rather know where they're at. I killed all four where I left them. I tried to kill myself with spice. I passed out. I woke up the next morning, paranoia kicked in. What am I going to do now. It's a matter of time before I get arrested, I might as well take a trip to Vegas.
BOYD YOUNG: At some point, he told you that he -- in his opinion, it was better for him to send them to heaven than to live what he perceived to be their future?
RICHARD FRIERSON: His thought processes were that -- he described it to me, Amber didn't want them. He was going to go away. He grew up without his mother. He didn't want them -- he thought it would be better if they were just all together. And so he made a decision and a conscious choice to kill them.
BOYD YOUNG: Does --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He felt in a sense -- in his way morally justified, which is much different than not knowing it's morally wrong to do so.
BOYD YOUNG: Right. And that's what he told you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: That he felt morally justified in his actions?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Right. That was -- I mean, that was his decision that he went through?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's what he told me as to why he decided to do what he did.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. And you've noticed some inconsistencies in his reports over the years?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And mentally ill people aren't always the most consistent people?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think non-mentally ill people are not always the most consistent. When you're talking about something that happened five years ago, different times reporting it, our memories get modified over time. That's not abnormal.
BOYD YOUNG: You told me that he was remorseful?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And that he regrets what he did?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: You've said you would not describe him as a career criminal?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm not sure what that means. He certainly had some legal difficulties early on, but he had a really eight-year period during his marriage to Amber where he appeared to function very well, was stable, not using drugs, not using spice, attending church, no legal difficulties.
BOYD YOUNG: Was he hypersensitive to abandonment?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And did the spice make him paranoid?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think at the end, it did. He began using spice sometime in the late spring, early summer of 2014. And he used incredible amounts of spice. He says up to five times a day. At work, he would go outside on breaks to use spice. He had used it that day. If you look at his banking records, the amount of money that he's spending at this shop called Time Warp where he bought spice increased throughout the summer, up until I think the -- I don't want to get the exact wrong amounts, but in August, he spent $230.00 dollars in the month preceding the offenses, $65.00 dollars on June 30th, $70.00 dollars on August 4th, $39.00 dollars on August 13th, $60.00 dollars on August 16th.
BOYD YOUNG: And those are just the ones that you can trace through his banking account, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Through a credit card, right. I don't know if he bought extra with cash.
BOYD YOUNG: And you, ultimately, gave Tim a diagnosis?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I did.
BOYD YOUNG: And what was that, what was that diagnosis?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I diagnosed Mr. Jones with a substance induced psychotic disorder from spice or synthetic cannabinoids, as we call it. I also diagnosed him with cannabis use disorder, severe; and alcohol use disorder, mild.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, the substance induced psychotic disorder, we talked about that in relation to these offenses, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And --
RICHARD FRIERSON: And what I mean by that specifically is the thought that it's not normal to -- it's not a delusion because it wasn't a fixed false belief. But just to have the paranoid thought that my six-year-old child is somehow going to use an electrical outlet to kill me in my sleep, that's not a normal thought that I think most people in their right mind would think.
BOYD YOUNG: Right. It's psychotic?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. Well, I think it's paranoid, yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And this is a substance induced psychosis, right, that he was in at the time of the offenses on the 28th?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And but for the spice, we wouldn't be here today?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't think so, but, you know, I'm not a -- I'm not a fortune teller.
BOYD YOUNG: Based on everything that you have here --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think spice contributed incredibly to what happened.
BOYD YOUNG: Thank you, sir. I want to go to -- I'm going to go down to Page 19 on your report and talk a little bit about during -- you did a competency to stand trial evaluation of Mr. Jones back in 2016, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And during that time, he talked about the voices and told you about voices, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And at that point in time, and you have a blurb here, I think, where he told you he was hearing voices every day throughout his life, from the time he was ten on, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's what he said the first time I saw him.
BOYD YOUNG: In 2016?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I've been hearing voices since I was ten. It's only through many more hours of evaluation that you have to ask him, describe the voices, tell me what you mean by voices, what do they say. And it became clear to me, the more you talked to him about the content and how he described them, that what he is referring to as voices are not psychotic hallucinations, but they are his own anxious thoughts. Give you an example. He told the police officers in Mississippi that the voices started after his divorce -- or after his separation from Amber. I asked him about that, what did you mean by that. And he said, the voices were saying what am I going to do. How am I going to take care of five kids. How am I going to be able to work and manage all this. He said he couldn't concentrate at work because he kept having these intrusive thoughts. I think anybody who undergoes a divorce -- or many people who undergo a divorce, it's very stressful. And so the way he refers to the stressful, anxious thoughts is he refers to them as voices. And you ask him do you -- does it sound like someone is in the room talking to you. No. And then later, as we've gone on, he will say to me, I know that -- now that these aren't hallucinations, but intrusive thoughts. He will refer to his anxious thoughts as intrusive thoughts instead of voices.
BOYD YOUNG: And that was new language to you, right? That's not common language that you would use?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, he actually used the term -- I believe he used the term, thought insertion. And that is a medical term, that's a psychiatric term. I don't know how someone who's a layperson would ever know that term on their own and somehow, in the course of psychiatric interactions with other doctors, they've told him that.
BOYD YOUNG: And you know he's met with a lot of doctors?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm sorry?
BOYD YOUNG: You know he's met with a lot of doctors?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And it's possible that is a term that he picked up from them?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's possible.
BOYD YOUNG: Before I leave that page, could you tell the jury what his medication regime was at the time when you saw him -- or what --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Which time?
BOYD YOUNG: Well, what it's been throughout this time.
RICHARD FRIERSON: I could just say, in general, he has been on antipsychotic medication throughout his time at the Department of Corrections. He's also been on a medicine called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. That's a fancy word, it just means -- it's an antidepressant. Things like Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, all of those are antidepressants. They treat depression and anxiety. He's been on that throughout almost all of his incarceration. More recently, at the suggestion of a defense expert, the Department of Corrections placed him on a mood stabilizer, Depakote.
BOYD YOUNG: How about Geodon, has he been --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He's been on Geodon. He's been on very large doses of Geodon.
BOYD YOUNG: How about Inderal or Propranol--
RICHARD FRIERSON: Propranolol.
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Propranolol is a beta-blocker and it's actually just used to manage side effects from some of the antipsychotic drugs.
BOYD YOUNG: Is one of those side effects akathisia?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Akathisia, yes. That's when people have an inner restlessness. Antipsychotics can make people feel like they have to move all the time.
BOYD YOUNG: And how about Remeron?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Remeron is an antidepressant that's frequently used to help with sleep.
BOYD YOUNG: And how about Prazolin--
RICHARD FRIERSON: Prazosin.
BOYD YOUNG: Sorry.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Early on -- and this has since resolved, but very early on in his incarceration, he had reported some nightmares about the -- what happened, his killing his children. It would play over in his mind and he would have some flashbacks about it. And Prazosin is a blood pressure medicine, interestingly enough, that has been used in the VA and some other places to treat these symptoms in PTSD. But those have since resolved and I don't believe he's taking that anymore.
BOYD YOUNG: But he reported at one time, he was having daily flashbacks multiple times a day, that they lasted --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I mean, people can be traumatized by their own criminal acts or own violent acts. They can -- I'll have people who commit murder who shoot people and after that, they keep thinking about what they did and they don't want to think about it and it's intrusive and bothersome.
BOYD YOUNG: And at one point in time, on April the 28th of 2015, after he had been in the Department of Corrections for a year, he tried to kill himself -- or you tell -- he tied a sheet around his neck --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He tied a sheet around his neck and he stated at that time that he was feeling both depressed and angry. He missed two doses of medication the night before. They had instituted a new policy there because some inmates where he was being kept in safekeeping were dousing nurses with urine and feces and stuff that no one wants to be thrown on them. And they required that the inmates go to the very back of the shower, at the back of their room. They would put the medicine on the flap and they would back up and the inmate -- or the Defendant in this case could get their medication. There was some conflict or -- there's different versions of what exactly happened, but he said that he went into the shower, but the nurse kept telling him you've got to back up against the wall. He didn't do that, so she wouldn't give him his medicine and he became very angry. He stated that after that -- well, he's given me two versions of this. Once -- well, one was after missing that dose of medication, the voices came back. Later, in November, he stated that it wasn't a voice, it was his anxious thoughts came back. Okay. So he tied a bedsheet around his neck, hung it from the door in an attempt to hang himself. And the correctional officers entered and cut him down. He said to me, at that time, he was frustrated with the situation and just wanted to die. There's conflicting reports about this. He later told, supposedly a nurse, that he was not suicidal at all, he was just mad.
BOYD YOUNG: That nurse is no longer employed at SCDC, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's my understanding. So I reviewed a video, I wanted to see this for myself. So I asked the Department of Corrections, do you have a video of this and they were able to provide it. I went out, it lasted about an hour, and I watched this.
BOYD YOUNG: I'm going to show you what's been marked as Defense Exhibit number 300 for identification, and ask you if you recognize that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. This appears to be a view from overhead in his cell looking down of him during the suicide attempt.
BOYD YOUNG: And is that -- that's a still from the video that you watched?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's a still, yes. Appears so.
BOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, at this time, we would offer Defense Exhibit number 300 into evidence.
RICK HUBBARD: No objection.
THE COURT: 300 is in without objection. (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit number 300 was admitted into evidence.)
BOYD YOUNG: I hope they can see it with the glare. So this is the shower area right here, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I believe so.
BOYD YOUNG: And so he said he was standing here and they wanted him back here?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's what he says, yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And this is Tim with the sheet around his neck tied to the door?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And he's leaning forward?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, the notes that you reviewed around the suicide attempt, also, did they talk about him experiencing anything that night, the night before?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, I know that his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Wood, thought that from missing the side effect medicine, the Propranolol, which is one of the medicines he was taking, that he might be experiencing akathisia, that inner -- causes you to feel like you constantly need to keep moving. People with -- on antipsychotic medications on an in-patient unit, you might see them pacing, just constantly walking. So it's an inner feeling of restlessness. And if you look at the video, initially, for the first 20 to 30 minutes, he's just sitting there shaking his leg around, around, around, around, around. And I know that Dr. Wood thought that maybe that was evidence of akathisia. And I think that might have been evidence of akathisia. She's probably correct.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, do you recall from your review of this video, like, what time -- so he's in a cameraed cell that's being monitored, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. Sorry.
BOYD YOUNG: Do you recall what time he actually, like, started to try and hang himself?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It was early in the morning to my recollection.
BOYD YOUNG: If I said it was about 8:08 a.m., does that sound about right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I didn't write the time down, I just remember it was early in the morning.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Sounds about right. I couldn't say for sure.
BOYD YOUNG: Sure. And how long was he doing that before the guards came in and cut him down?
RICHARD FRIERSON: A long time.
BOYD YOUNG: An hour?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He would take it off, adjust it, put it back on, do things with it. It went on for a while. The whole video is over an hour. This went on for maybe -- I'm going on memory here, which isn't always -- it went on for 30, 40 minutes, at least.
BOYD YOUNG: Well, in your report on Page 20, you said he would have spent almost an hour attempting to do something?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Okay, well, then maybe it was an hour. Sorry.
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
RICHARD FRIERSON: It was a long time. You know, he never -- one of the things that I do, I have a contract with the Department of Corrections that I review completed suicides. I look at all the suicides in the Department of Corrections and review the incident reports of how they happen. And most of them that I've reviewed happen very quickly. They happen within minutes. You know, there's a check, they're okay. There's another 15-minute check, they're hanging. So he is never seen picking his feet up, you know, to get leverage on the ligature point.
BOYD YOUNG: Like maximum pressure?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He's leaning forward, but he never lifts his feet off the ground. And I think there's evidence of some ambivalence on his part.
BOYD YOUNG: And you can take your weight --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Which anybody who commits suicide has some degree of ambivalence.
BOYD YOUNG: Can you take your weight and put it on your neck without picking your feet up off the ground?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You can, but it's much more effective to let gravity do it.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: And easier to let gravity do it.
BOYD YOUNG: I think at one point in time -- and this -- I'm going over to Page 21, top of Page 21, where he had told you that this was his first suicide attempt at one point in time?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He's -- well -- right, he denied previous suicide attempts, which was -- I think he said he had never tried to kill himself before.
BOYD YOUNG: And then he told you he had on one other occasion?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, he tried to kill himself with spice after the murder of the five children.
BOYD YOUNG: He told you that was an overdose of medication, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, but he told me spice. He specifically said I tried to kill myself with spice, but it didn't work.
BOYD YOUNG: So is it your word that he said medication, overdose on medication?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, he said both, I think. And I said what med -- you know, spice.
BOYD YOUNG: He referred to spice as medication?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: He said he was using it medicinally?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. Or implied that it had some benefits for him.
BOYD YOUNG: Going down a little bit down the page where you talk about his psychiatric history. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury about his evaluation when he was in the Navy?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. According to the military records, he first was evaluated by a mental health professional or by a psychiatrist, I think, in 2000 -- let me take that back. He was sent to a drug counseling program as an adolescent, but his first real encounter with mental health professionals was in 2000 when he was in the Navy. He had gone in the Navy wanting to be a Navy Seal. He had been in a car accident that damaged his -- or caused some hip pain. And during basic training, he was having horrible hip pain and he realized he would never be able to complete this and become a Navy Seal. He thought about being a diesel mechanic, but the pain was too hard. And he had told them -- and this is what he denies to me and no one seems to have any recollection of this. His records from the military says that he informs staff he had suicidal thoughts since the age of 14 and engaged in self-mutilation, which involved cutting himself with a knife and paperclip. He denies ever doing that, ever saying that. I don't know what to make of that. His family has no history of knowing him doing stuff like that. But, anyway, they gave him a diagnosis of depression not otherwise specified or depressive disorder not otherwise specified, alcohol dependence, cannabis dependence and gave him what's called an entry separation and deemed ineligible for reentry into the military.
BOYD YOUNG: Let me show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit number 299, and ask you if you recognize that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: This is a military document from the Department of Navy from commanding officer of the recruit training command to personnel support activity detached of the officer in charge regarding his separation.
BOYD YOUNG: And they note his diagnosis of a depressive disorder and alcohol and cannabis dependency?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Evidenced by a depressive disorder and medical evaluation of alcohol dependence and cannabis dependence.
BOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, we'd offer Defendant's Exhibit number 299 into evidence.
RICK HUBBARD: No objection.
THE COURT: 299 is in without objection. (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit number 299 was admitted into evidence.)
BOYD YOUNG: Now, you have previously testified that it's not uncommon for mental illness to begin as a diagnosis of depressive disorder in early teens, late -- or late teens, early 20's. Is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Can you repeat the question?
BOYD YOUNG: Sure. Is it uncommon for mental illness to begin as a depressive disorder?
RICHARD FRIERSON: What mental illness are we referring to?
BOYD YOUNG: Any --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Depressive disorder is a mental illness.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's why I was sort of confused on the question.
BOYD YOUNG: Sure. Is a depressive disorder in late teens, early 20's, is that something that could lead to a major mental illness later on?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Could that be the first signs, is that what you're asking?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: I think that's a better way to ask it. Thank you. One more thing before I go back to Page 21, when talking about his suicide attempt or what he did at the prison, what was his opinion regarding future self-harm?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That he would never kill himself.
BOYD YOUNG: And did he say --
RICHARD FRIERSON: For religious reasons.
BOYD YOUNG: Is that because he hoped to be reunited with his children?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, it's a sin, in his book, to commit suicide.
BOYD YOUNG: So he wouldn't be reunited with his children that he had sent to heaven?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Going forward in time in his psychiatric history a little bit and over to Page 22, after he separated from Amber, he started seeing a therapist, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And there was something that was described as the monster. Can you tell the jury what you said about that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Let me find it on my report.
BOYD YOUNG: It's the third paragraph, and I guess I can start with "he was bombarded with anxious thoughts".
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah. In discussing the separation from Amber and in treatment with Ms. Hames, he reported that he'd need something to calm his intrusive thoughts. He could not think about anything else other than the loss of his marriage and that he worried about it incessantly. I was bombarded by anxious thoughts. He lost almost all ability to concentrate at work. So his boss -- he reached out to his boss and they referred him to the employee assistance program or EAP, which, in turn, referred him to Ms. Hames. He states that he had the fear that Amber was having an affair. And that is the monster in his mind, that he keeps thinking she's cheating on him.
BOYD YOUNG: Did you ever talk to Dr. Hames?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, I reviewed her records.
BOYD YOUNG: And the jury can remember what she said. Skipping forward a little bit, you went through his treatment records on Page 23 and 24, going through his treatment at the Department of Corrections, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. I, in my report, organized it by year for sake of breaking it up somehow.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, in the 2016, 2017, 2018 history here, is he relatively stable?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Could that be a good indication that the medication that he's on is working?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Or else that he doesn't have a major mental illness.
BOYD YOUNG: He's on medication during all this time?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, he is on medicine. And he actually did fairly well going forward from about a month after his incarceration.
BOYD YOUNG: And he was put on Geodon the day that he arrived at --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: -- the Department of Corrections?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: I think this is -- when you were talking about his alcohol and drug use history on Page 25 in the second paragraph, I think you recorded he had been using marijuana about two weeks prior to killing his children?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He said he last used marijuana about two weeks before -- his last use was two weeks before his arrest.
BOYD YOUNG: And you know he didn't test positive for marijuana?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right, he did not test positive. He had switched primarily to using synthetic cannabinoids or spice, specifically one called Scooby Snax.
BOYD YOUNG: And that had been several months before as opposed to two weeks before?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He had been using spice all along. He had been using spice and marijuana.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. So you said then he said, I stopped when I found spice?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, he eventually cut down the marijuana use and was not using it anymore. The past two weeks before the alleged crimes happened, he was not using marijuana. He said he was just using spice daily. He described the term wake and bake, meaning he would get up first thing in the morning and use spice.
BOYD YOUNG: But he didn't show up positive for marijuana in his tox?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He didn't show up positive for marijuana. He showed up positive for synthetic cannabinoid called AB Pinaca.
BOYD YOUNG: I think on -- moving forward a little bit to Page 27 at the top where you talked about he had had this relatively stable eight years during his marriage or after he got out of boot camp where he was not using drugs or alcohol, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct. He was completely sober during his eight-year marriage to Amber. He was not using marijuana, not drinking, not smoking cigarettes.
BOYD YOUNG: But he did tell you that he was still hearing voices during that time, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Experiencing unwanted thoughts sometime, yes. I mean, I think Mr. Jones has had clearly times when he's been depressed. I think Ms. Hames referred him to a family practitioner for medicine for depression and anxiety after his separation and divorce from Amber. That was a very difficult time for him.
BOYD YOUNG: And I think what you said was that these voices were not an impairment to him, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I mean, it's -- that's the only time they were impairing. They're not voices, but his anxious thoughts. But he was having trouble concentrating at work. That's impairment. I can't think of anything else but my wife's going to leave me, she's having an affair and I think about it all the time at work whether I want to or not. And I think it's starting to interfere with my ability to concentrate on what I'm supposed to be doing at Intel.
BOYD YOUNG: Even during his years of sobriety, he reported that the voices were distressing to him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: They didn't interfere with his function, his ability to go to school or work.
BOYD YOUNG: But they still bothered him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He experienced them, yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Finally, real quick, on the top of Page 28, he also talked about having taken Chantix?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen about that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Chantix is a medicine called Varenicline that's used to stop smoking. It's a nicotine receptor drug. It's supposed to help decrease the craving. People go on it when they want to quit smoking.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, did he say he was taking it as prescribed or --
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. He would frequently forget to take it.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. Was he taking it inconsistently?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And --
RICHARD FRIERSON: And he continued to smoke on top of it.
BOYD YOUNG: Is that not how you're supposed to do it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, yes, but two packs on top of it.
BOYD YOUNG: It's supposed to naturally cut down on your cravings, is that how it works -- supposed to work?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I believe so.
BOYD YOUNG: And then you talked about his family history?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And I think we -- we've already addressed a little bit about what was going on in the household in which he was raised, right? And I'm skipping forward to about Page 30, the second paragraph down. He told you about the chaotic environment in which he grew up. You also got the family history from other relatives?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, family history mainly. He described his childhood, they did the best they could, but he always missed his mom.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, growing up in a childhood where there's drug abuse, there's violence, mother who is no longer in the picture and abandonment, those types of things. Do those things have an effect on people?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm sure they do. I mean, we are all affected by what we experience in childhood.
BOYD YOUNG: As a forensic psychiatrist, is childhood abandonment something that affects people?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah. I mean, I think that Mr. Jones was very sensitive to abandonment. He had been abandoned by his mother. And so when Amber left him, that's a bigger threat to him than somebody who didn't have that childhood history.
BOYD YOUNG: You talked about how he did in school?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: On his educational intellect history?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, he did excellent in school up until his senior year. Almost a straight A student.
BOYD YOUNG: He started getting in trouble around age 17, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And his grades dropped?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, he was caught with marijuana at school. He started using marijuana and drinking much more heavily towards his senior year. He said, I knew I wanted to go in the military. I just wanted to graduate and have fun and party with friends.
BOYD YOUNG: And you also knew that he had been in a number of car wrecks, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, 15, 16 and 18, I believe.
BOYD YOUNG: And the car wrecks preceded his drop in grades and behavioral problems, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: One of them did -- or two of them did.
BOYD YOUNG: And those are the two where we talked about the --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, the depressed skull fracture from the one at age 15.
BOYD YOUNG: And the one at 16, was it the same place where he got a scar and that was where his skin was eventually done?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: You next -- I think we've already talked about his military history and then you talked about his adult functioning, talked about education, his religious history, his marital and parental history. And I'm going to skip ahead to around Page 36 at the top -- starting at the bottom of Page 35. So this is after he and Amber had divorced, right? Are you with me on that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: They had separated on June 7th of 2012, legally.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: And although she admitted to adultery, they decided to divorce after a year of separation.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because he had found out that she was having an affair with the live-in babysitter.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. And was there a period of time where she missed some visits?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And what was his response to her missed visits?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He described that the place where Amber was living with her young boyfriend and his parents, that no one in the house was working. That he didn't know exactly how they supported themselves and he thought that they might try to take advantage of Amber. She didn't have a job. She had no source of income. She didn't drive. And he was concerned that they would prostitute her.
BOYD YOUNG: And so what did he do?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He looked at Back Page.
BOYD YOUNG: And he started looking for her on --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, to see if that's what was going on as an explanation for why she wouldn't show up for visitation.
BOYD YOUNG: So he was searching for her on the internet?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: On sites where people normally post for prostitutes?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Same paragraph down, he talked about where DSS was called because of a bruise on Nahtahn, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: I know the jury's already heard it and they've seen the picture. You said that there was a bruise on his neck. Have you seen the picture of the bruising?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I believe I did.
BOYD YOUNG: And was it actually on his chin?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'd have to see it again. I'm sorry. I've reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents and I just--
BOYD YOUNG: Well, the jury has a picture. You looked at information from collateral sources. Particularly, you talked to Mr. Jones, Sr., Tim Jones, Sr.?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I did.
BOYD YOUNG: And you talked to him about Tim's head injury?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And you asked him about whether or not there was a change in his personality?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
BOYD YOUNG: And what did he tell you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He did not notice a big change in his personality, but at the same time, Tim was entering late adolescence and doing teenage rebellious-type things.
BOYD YOUNG: Well, I mean, somebody who's been studious and going from a straight A student to I don't care attitude, would that be considered a change in personality?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Not necessarily, especially if he's using drugs and wants to party because he's going to go into the military, doesn't need to keep up the grades to go to college.
BOYD YOUNG: You also talked to his grandmother, Roberta Thornsberry?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And how did she tell you he looked or appeared -- she had seen him in Atlanta a couple weeks prior to --
RICHARD FRIERSON: She thought she saw him in Atlanta the weekend before this happened.
BOYD YOUNG: Was that --
RICHARD FRIERSON: And I just said based on my records and looking at the credit cards, Embassy Suites, text messages about this is where we're going to stay, it was earlier in August. It was the first weekend in August.
BOYD YOUNG: Before the kids started school?
RICHARD FRIERSON: She was very concerned. He had lost weight. Lost a lot of weight. He was drinking excessively. You get, I think, coupons or something to go to the bar when you check into Embassy Suites. He asked for her coupons and her husband's coupons. That he was drinking heavily and looked haggard.
BOYD YOUNG: Did she mention to you that he had come in and thought that Elaine had been behind the couch crying?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, she did.
BOYD YOUNG: And did that make it into your report?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't know if that made it into my report or not. I don't think so.
BOYD YOUNG: Well, that would -- she told you that was false, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He actually told me it was Gabriel.
BOYD YOUNG: That he thought was behind the couch? And there was no child behind the couch, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Apparently, not.
BOYD YOUNG: I mean, from what Ms. Thornsberry told you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Not that she was aware. She was asleep.
BOYD YOUNG: And I think we've sort of talked about this. And I'm skipping forward to the results of -- these are the results of the neuropsychological evaluation. And we talked about his voices or auditory disturbances may best be explained as negative self-talk. Is that -- that's your conclusion, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. That was Dr. Kruse's conclusion.
BOYD YOUNG: Do you agree with that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think that what he reports as voices are anxious thoughts that he has. I mean, just like anybody would have in certain situations.
BOYD YOUNG: Well, it says that they're are not his thoughts, right, when he talks about --
RICHARD FRIERSON: They're thoughts that he doesn't want -- they're intrusive in that he doesn't want to think about this all the time, but he can't stop.
BOYD YOUNG: And they resolved through medication, is that right? That's what he reports?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right, but I would expect them to because of the SSRI that he's taking, the antidepressant.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. The voice in your head, your conscience, the negative self-talk, you can't resolve that through medication, right? That doesn't go away?
RICHARD FRIERSON: If it's due to anxiety, yes, it could go away with treatment with antidepressant medication.
BOYD YOUNG: Is this -- let's see. In your -- the diagnostic formulation, is that part of your report or is that part of Dr. Kruse's information?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's my report.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. You talked about his mood swings, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
BOYD YOUNG: Can you tell the jury about his mood swings? I think it's the bottom of that first paragraph.
RICHARD FRIERSON: He reported incidents -- he had one minute he will feel -- really feel good and then something can happen and he'll immediately get in a bad mood.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. Now --
RICHARD FRIERSON: That he has rapid mood swings, one minute happy, one minute sad. And that type of description of mood swings is not consistent with bipolar disorder or mania.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. Did you say it was more consistent with a personality disorder?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, you know that he has organic brain damage, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I know that he had a depressed skull fracture. I know that initially the CAT scans revealed no brain contusion. I know that you have experts that say there is evidence that there was a brain contusion. I know that there's a structural -- I mean, you can look at scans. It's quite obvious. Functionally, in other words, his performance on the neuropsych testing, his concentration, his memory -- the reason I got the neuropsych testing is I had a defense-provided report that says he has an IQ of 87. And I'm sitting there to myself, how does someone with an IQ of 87 get a computer science degree from Mississippi State, Summa Cum Laude, which is the highest grades you can get, that and someone with an IQ of 87 don't match. It would be very hard for someone with an IQ of 87 to do that well in such a hard college degree program. So that's why I wanted the neuropsych.
BOYD YOUNG: Right. The frontal lobe is the part that controls executive functioning and emotions, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, impairments to that can cause personality changes, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It can, yes. Frontal lobe damage can cause personality changes.
BOYD YOUNG: And it can cause difficulty with mood regulation?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. But I would have expected that to be quite evident right after the injury and I didn't get that history from his father or his grandmother.
BOYD YOUNG: And the jury has heard from Dr. Snyder about how long and what affects people can have, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I wasn't -- I don't know.
BOYD YOUNG: You've reviewed Dr. Snyder's and Dr. Bigler's reports with regard to brain damage?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: You don't have any reason to disagree with any of their findings?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I have a reason to disagree with -- I don't have the reports in front of me, but about his function. His memory, concentration, frontal lobe functioning on neuropsych testing is excellent.
BOYD YOUNG: And you're talking about his cognitive testing, his IQ?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Not just IQ, but just ability to plan, to abstract, just, you know. Dr. Kruse specifically gave him tests that are designed to measure frontal lobe functioning and they were all fine.
SHAWN GRAHAM: I'm sorry to interrupt. If I could ask for clarification of his questions. Dr. Frierson read the reports. He was not here for testimony. So I don't want confusion about maybe something that was testified to that's not in his report.
THE COURT: That's fair enough.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So if it's something specific, I'd ask that be clarified.
THE COURT: That's a fair suggestion, so don't -- let's don't misconstrue any prior -- and not that you have. Be clear with your questions since he's not been sitting here during any of the trial.
BOYD YOUNG: And they haven't made any specific findings about Mr. Jones. They've just made findings about possible impairments from brain injury, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And you don't have any reason to disagree with what they say about possible impairments --
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, I've seen the pictures.
BOYD YOUNG: I think you described them as very impressive?
RICHARD FRIERSON: They are impressive.
BOYD YOUNG: And what exactly?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You could see structural abnormalities in the brain. But I'm concerned with function, not structure. You could have a very normal-looking brain and have horrible functioning. You could have a very abnormal-looking brain and still be functioning very well.
BOYD YOUNG: And he was. I mean, he went to college, got a degree, graduated, got a job?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. There was no evidence of impairment.
BOYD YOUNG: Over on Page -- top of Page 43, I think you were talking about some of the possible symptoms of schizophrenia. And at the bottom of the first paragraph, you were talking about disorganized speech or behavior, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's in my report. I mention it.
BOYD YOUNG: And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury about disorganized speech and behavior as it relates to schizophrenia?
RICHARD FRIERSON: People with schizophrenia, at times when they're not in treatment can display disorganized speech and behavior. You might see bizarre things that people do. You might see someone dressed in three coats when it's a hundred degrees outside. You might see someone speak and it really not make any sense. They jump from topic to topic. They may make up words that mean something to them that you've never heard of. Made up words that they have their meaning for them. So, you know, one of the things I looked at is the description of Mr. Jones twenty-four hours after he was arrested, when he's sweating profusely, foaming at the mouth, screaming one minute, not making a lot of sense. His father said it was just like I was staring at his mother when she was mentally ill. You know, he has all those things and then -- which, you know, could be a presentation of acute psychotic episode schizophrenia. But then without any sort of treatment, twenty-four hours later, he's back to pretty much his normal self. His dad said, I saw my Tim again. If this was schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder due to schizophrenia, I would not expect it to get better without treatment. It doesn't get better on its own.
BOYD YOUNG: How about driving all over the southeast with --
RICHARD FRIERSON: That was purposeful on his part. He was trying not to be at home. He was trying to figure out what to do.
BOYD YOUNG: Did --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Where to go, you know, where to dispose of the bodies.
BOYD YOUNG: Did you review the notes that he had made about the body disposal?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Did those appear to be disorganized?
BOYD YOUNG: Not at all? All the arrows, all the circles. That's --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, people have ways of making notes to themselves. They were logical in sequence. Dissolve the bodies, saw them up, burn them, dispose of them. He had looked at places to dispose of the bodies. He had searched cadaver dogs at landfills.
BOYD YOUNG: Which he didn't take them to?
BOYD YOUNG: Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury a little bit about delusions and how they develop and --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Delusions are --
BOYD YOUNG: --how long it takes.
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- fixed, false beliefs. They are something that someone will believe even when given evidence to the contrary. I'll give you an example. I had a guy who thought the government had planted a computer chip in his body. It was monitoring him and sending him all sorts of messages. And, actually, is physician sent him for a scan, an MRI scan. Said there's nothing in your body, you haven't been implanted. And then, you know, he says it's got a cloaking device. So even when given evidence that this isn't in your body, he still believes it. That's a fixed, false belief. Delusions develop very slowly over time. You might have the neighbor next door is parking his car closer and closer to your property and you become suspicious of that. One day you see him out by the mailbox and think he might be looking in your mailbox. You become suspicious of that. A few days later, you may smell some abnormal smell inside your house and you think the neighbor might be putting something in your air conditioning vent to poison you. And then at some point, you become convinced that your neighbor is trying to hurt you. It begins gradually and over time to reach a conclusion.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. And you've reviewed some internet searches regarding Merah and whether or not Tim thought she might be schizophrenic?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. He said that one day Merah was talking to herself.
BOYD YOUNG: And he started looking that up?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. He was very afraid that he was going to have what his mother had, that his children were going to have what his mother had, schizophrenia.
BOYD YOUNG: You didn't think that was a delusion?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. I think a lot of people that have mental illness in their family worry that it might affect them. The risk is greater if you have a parent, but it's not -- 85 to 90 percent of people with a parent with schizophrenia will not get schizophrenia. The vast majority do not end up with schizophrenia.
BOYD YOUNG: Nahtahn trying to electrocute me, you did not think that was a delusion?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I thought it was a paranoid thought.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: But it wasn't of delusional intensity. It wasn't fixed at that point. He didn't think anything about Nahtahn earlier that day. I mean, he knew that Nahtahn was fascinated with electricity.
BOYD YOUNG: And he had done searches about --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right, could he hurt himself. He had unscrewed a lightbulb above the bathroom sink. He caught him one day about two weeks, I think, before this happened. And he was making sure that -- he wanted to see how dangerous it was, but he said Nahtahn had a fascination with electricity.
BOYD YOUNG: You don't think that that was the beginning -- I mean --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think he was getting, well, you know, that turns into -- on the night that this happened, the sudden thing he's not confessing to blowing the thing. He had been using spice all day and then he thinks, you know, maybe he's out to harm me.
BOYD YOUNG: That was a paranoid thought versus it hadn't gotten to the point of a fixed, false belief?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
BOYD YOUNG: And then Amber being prostituted, that was -- that wasn't a fixed, false belief?
RICHARD FRIERSON: The way he describes that, it sounds like it could be reality based. I mean, there's nothing in the description of that that makes me think it's delusional.
THE COURT: Mr. Young, is this a good time to interrupt for a break?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You've still got some more to do?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Dr. Frierson, you stay right there. We'll take a short break. Have you back out here shortly. Don't discuss the case. (WHEREUPON, the jury was excused from the courtroom for a break.)
(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
THE COURT: Let's bring the jury in. (Whereupon, the jury came into open court at approximately 11:55 a.m.)
THE COURT: I know y'all have a lunch reservation at a particular time. Mr. Young has agreed to let me give him the signal as to you've got a couple of minutes. So with that in mind, I don't think we'll be through with Dr. Frierson, but he's going to ask questions until we get to that time, okay? Mr. Young. CONTINUE DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. YOUNG:
BOYD YOUNG: Dr. Frierson, go straight to Page 45, the second paragraph down. Tim reported to you that he could read the cues of the children. He knew when they were lying, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right, he was familiar enough with his children that he could tell when someone was lying.
BOYD YOUNG: And him saying I could read their nonverbal cues, that didn't seem unusual to you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. Most people -- he was able to explain that a little bit and it made sense.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. That he knew that it wasn't anybody else that had messed with the outlets. Is that what he was talking about?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That Merah -- well, first of all, he knew it wasn't Gabriel or --
BOYD YOUNG: Elaine?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Elaine, Abigail, I'm not sure what you're referring to, what name you're using. So he was focused on Merah, Elias and Nahtahn. And Merah and Elias looked him right in the eye and denied it immediately. And Nahtahn was fidgety, wouldn't look me in the eye and he sort of clammed up. And he thought that Nahtahn must have done something to the outlet. Plus, he's the one interested in electricity, so.
BOYD YOUNG: Now, at the top of Page 46, he also believed that Merah and Nahtahn were engaged in a plan?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. He had thought that -- well, after the separation, the kids missed their mother, as you would expect any child that age to. The only person they've ever known, to raise them, around them twenty-four hours a day, unless they were at school, all of a sudden is taken away from them. And they were very, very -- missing her very much. There are videos I watched where he took of them crying asking for Amber to come back -- asking for their mom to come back that he had sent to Amber. Very emotionally draining videos. So the kids probably did want to go back with Amber. I mean, that would not be unusual for a child. But he had thought that, perhaps, Merah and Nahtahn might have been up to something with the DSS allegations.
BOYD YOUNG: Did he make Google searches about that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And what were those?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't remember the exact words, but children turning against their parents or something like that, or against their father.
BOYD YOUNG: Father betrayed by my young children?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, father betrayed by my young children.
BOYD YOUNG: And you didn't think that that was odd?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm not sure what odd is. I didn't think it was indicative of mental illness.
BOYD YOUNG: On Page 47, I think is where you talked about -- and I think we've already discussed this. Tim expressed to you that he thought it was better for him to send them to heaven than for them to have to live without a mother, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: At the bottom of Page 49, before you start your conclusions regarding criminal responsibility, you noticed that Tim played a song that, Long Arm of the Law, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Did you also notice that he played a song called Butterfly Kisses?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And that didn't make it into your --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, that was one of Merah's favorite songs.
BOYD YOUNG: That he was playing -- this is after the children were dead and he was driving around playing these in the car, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. He was grieving. He may have done it, but he was still grieving the loss of his children.
BOYD YOUNG: Just a couple more questions. In your report, in these two pages and all of the information that you reviewed, there's no mention of Tim's responses to the initial mental health questionnaire that he was given?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Which mental health questionnaire are you referring to?
BOYD YOUNG: Sure. Where the police asked him, would you still do it if a police officer was with you, did you know it was wrong. All those questions?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: They're not mentioned in your report?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I do not mention them in my report, no.
BOYD YOUNG: Those were taken two days after his arrest?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't know exactly. They were some time -- I think you're correct, two days after his arrest.
BOYD YOUNG: And this is after his symptoms, the foaming at the mouth and stuff had resolved?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It resolved, yes.
BOYD YOUNG: So why didn't you put those in there?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because I don't believe that's a very reliable way of determining someone's criminal responsibility or mental state at the time of the offense when you're already in police custody. I don't think it's appropriate for law enforcement to assess someone's mental state.
BOYD YOUNG: You also had some information about -- from law enforcement about statements that Tim made when he was first checked into Kirkland at the MSU unit?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And those weren't in your report either?
BOYD YOUNG: Why?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I try to place in my report what I think is most important. The statements from correctional officers -- I mean, I work in the Department of Corrections and they have a very hard job, they work very hard. But they were outliers.
BOYD YOUNG: They were inconsistent with what he had told you and --
RICHARD FRIERSON: They were not consistent with what he told right after he was arrested. The statements that he gave, they're not consistent with everything that he's told me.
BOYD YOUNG: Or any other report --
RICHARD FRIERSON: And the physical evidence doesn't necessarily support that.
BOYD YOUNG: You did not diagnose Tim as malingering?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It was a very strong consideration, but no.
BOYD YOUNG: Just going back to your CV for just a second. You're on the faculty for the National College of District Attorneys, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm not on their faculty. I have been asked by the National College of District Attorneys to do training for them, to teach them about mental illness. I've done that all over the country. They used to have a National -- the National Advocacy Center is down on the USC campus. It's a big building with eight courtrooms. They train attorneys from all over the country. They bring them here and they train them. And they reached out to me and asked if I was willing to do some mental health training for them since I was here and that then turned into, I've been to Alaska for them to train prosecutors in how to deal with mental health issues in court.
BOYD YOUNG: And specifically, how to deal with mental health issues in death penalty cases?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Some of those, yeah. They've asked about mental health issues that arise in death penalty litigation.
BOYD YOUNG: And do you know how many times you've gone to prosecutor conferences to lecture about --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I have not counted them on my CV yet lately. But I would say a dozen to twenty somewhere.
BOYD YOUNG: Dozen to twenty. Do you know how many times you've gone to a defense seminar?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Once.
BOYD YOUNG: You've written a number of publications, is that right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm a professor. I have to, yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And some of those publications are in conjunction with other psychiatrists?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And one of those psychiatrist is Dr. Schwartz-Watts or Dr. Maddox that you've written publications with?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I recall one publication with her, maybe two. Somehow -- articles one, I wrote a book chapter with her.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. One article, one book chapter?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's my recollection.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. I think one of the things you told me is that you are here sort of as an advocate for your opinion, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, I'm not an advocate for either side. I'm not an advocate for the defense or prosecution. I'm here just to give my opinion and to advocate for my opinion.
BOYD YOUNG: Right.
RICHARD FRIERSON: To say look, I've done the best I could. I spent a lot of hours on this, I looked at everything. And, you know, it's like I met with you and I said the truth is never what you say and it's never what the other side says. It's always to be somewhere in the middle.
BOYD YOUNG: And other psychiatrists could look at the same information and arrive at a different opinion?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I mean, the Supreme Court has nine judges on it. Five say one thing, four say the other. We're looking at -- not everything is black and white, especially when it comes to mental health. And reasonable people can disagree.
BOYD YOUNG: Thank you, Dr. Frierson.
THE COURT: All right. Now is a good time to break.
BOYD YOUNG: Now is a great time to break, Your Honor. I have one more thing I need to do with Dr. Frierson outside the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: All right. Y'all go to lunch. Enjoy your lunch. We'll see you about 1:30. When y'all get back, we'll get started when you get back. Don't talk about the case. (WHEREUPON, the jury was excused from the courtroom for a lunch break.)
BOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, I think we had indicated to the Court and State before that we would intend to ask Dr. Frierson a couple of questions, just a few questions about what happens if somebody is found not guilty by reason of insanity, where they go. And I know the Court has said that doesn't come in, but I'd just like the opportunity to proffer that testimony from Dr. Frierson real quick.
THE COURT: Go ahead. And it's consistent with the statute?
BOYD YOUNG: Sure. PROFFER EXAMINATION
BY MR. YOUNG:
BOYD YOUNG: Dr. Frierson, you've written articles about attorneys, Judges and their understanding of not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but mentally ill?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And your conclusion was, they don't understand it very well?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's a nickel summary, but, again, some understand better than others. There's misconceptions. And I don't know if you're talking about attorneys or jury's.
BOYD YOUNG: Everybody. What happens to somebody if they are found not guilty by reason of insanity?
RICHARD FRIERSON: According to the statute, they go to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health for a period, initially, not to exceed 120 days, during which time they have further mental evaluation. In that 120-day period they have to determine whether they need continued hospitalization or whether they can be released.
BOYD YOUNG: How many people have to agree for them to be released?
RICHARD FRIERSON: What?
BOYD YOUNG: If a doctor says --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Only a Judge can make that decision.
BOYD YOUNG: And even if the doctor wants somebody to be released, the Judge can still say no?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: And in South Carolina, are there specific restrictions on people who are in the custody of the Department of Mental Health under a not guilty by reason of insanity statute?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Are they restricted in their movements?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: Are they able to leave the facility for any reason?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, not without a Judge's permission.
BOYD YOUNG: Not without court approval. And are they housed at the Columbia Regional Care Center?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
BOYD YOUNG: I'm going to have this marked. Is this the patient handbook for the Columbia Regional Care Center?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't work there, so I would not know, but it looks like a picture of it.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. (WHEREUPON, Court's Exhibit number 97 was marked for identification only.)
BOYD YOUNG: Dr. Frierson, from your research, can you tell us whether or not jurors are affected by their misconceptions about what happens to people found not guilty by reason of insanity?
RICHARD FRIERSON: We have no way of knowing, but we do know that from research that I've done that some jurors think someone found not guilty by reason of insanity gets out.
BOYD YOUNG: And how about guilty but mentally ill?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Most jurors do not believe persons found guilty but mentally ill could get the death penalty.
BOYD YOUNG: Is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. Jamie Wilson is on South Carolina death row and he was found guilty but mentally ill.
BOYD YOUNG: I think that's all the questions I have Dr. Frierson. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Enjoy your lunch. We'll shoot for 1:30 and hope the jury does.
(WHEREUPON, a lunch break was taken.)
BOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, the Defense had requested a limited instruction prior to the testimony of Dr. Frierson. Your Honor gave an instruction to which the jury was told that this was a Court's witness and the Court's expert. We objected to the instruction as given at side bar as being possibly considered bolstering or vouching for the witness and requested a curative instruction. Your Honor gave a curative instruction that you were not vouching for his credibility. It would be our position that we request a mistrial because the curative instruction isn't able to sufficiently cure the taint of the first instruction.
THE COURT: Okay. I understand. I think both instructions were proper and the curative instruction was proper. So respectfully, you're protected, but denied.
BOYD YOUNG: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are y'all ready for the jury?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Bring them in. (Whereupon, the jury came into open court at approximately 2:00 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right. Ready to continue on. Dr. Frierson is ready to begin his testimony. Mr. Graham.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRAHAM:
SHAWN GRAHAM: Dr. Frierson, you're a forensic psychiatrist, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What is a forensic psychiatrist?
RICHARD FRIERSON: A forensic psychiatrist is a fully trained psychiatrist who has undergone extra training to learn to deal with issues related to psychiatry and the law, the legal system. It might be cases such as this one, where it's a criminal trial and the Defendant needs to be evaluated, but I also do a lot of other things. I review records in malpractice cases for the standard of care. I evaluate physicians and nurses and other professionals referred by the medical board or the nursing board where there's a question about their competence to practice. I might evaluate someone to see if they're competent to make a Will. A whole variety, disability evaluations, a lot of forensic issues.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You had testified when the Defense called you, that you have a music undergraduate degree --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- is that correct? What instrument?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm sorry.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What instrument?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Piano.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And I think you graduated with honors, high honors, didn't you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You went to a medical school here in South Carolina and graduated with honors from medical school?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then you've already testified about your residency and Fellowship in forensic psychiatry?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Let me ask a few more questions about your background. Currently -- since 2012, you were Professor of Clinical Psychiatry and Vice-Chair for education. And then in 2017, it became an Endowed Chair. So what does that mean?
RICHARD FRIERSON: An Endowed Professorship. It just, basically, means someone left a lot of money to go towards the University School of Medicine to help offset someone's salary. So Alexander G. Donald was my -- was a Chair of our department many years ago. He died and in his Estate left some money to Endower a Professorship.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So what currently do you do at the University of South Carolina?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I am the Vice-Chair for education of the Department of Psychiatry. So my job, first of all and foremost, is to run the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship. That's a program that trains people to do what I do. So every year, I train two, what we call Fellows in forensic psychiatry to become forensic psychiatrist. I, also, oversee the provision of medical suited education, general psychiatry residency training and child psychiatry and geriatric psychiatry residents in training. Although they have their own directors for each one of those programs, I sort of oversee the -- all the educational activities.
SHAWN GRAHAM: I also notice from your curriculum vitae, your resume, that says you -- since 2007, you've been a consultant to the South Carolina Department of Corrections at Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital. What is that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's the hospital in the Department of Corrections for people with severe mental illness are hospitalized when they need an inpatient, which is the highest level of care. So I treat patients every Tuesday afternoon, probably see eight patients, six or eight patients, depending if there are new ones every Tuesday afternoon, and I provide treatment. I prescribe medications for them and talk to them.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So you're a clinician, too?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Oh, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's what that is?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I supervise some residents in our general psychiatry clinic outside of the prison in treating patients.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Board certifications. What does that mean and what do you have?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Board Certification means you take a big exam. It's like the bar exam or some exam that's just for your speciality. So it's about a half-day exam. You go to the computer center and sit there and you have to study and you take the exam. If you pass, you are Board Certified.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you are Board Certified in Forensic Psychiatry?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And have been since 2002, I think, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think I've been Board Certified in Forensic Psychiatry since 1994. I recertified in 2000 --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes, it says Diplomat is what it says?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, I first passed it -- you have to pass the test every ten years to make sure you're still up to date, that you know what you're doing. So I've actually -- took the initial test in '94, because I was working for the -- the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology invited me to help write questions for the exam. So I did that for many, many years and ended up having to take my recert two years early, so I took it in 2002. And then I just took the board certification again a year or two ago.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What is the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law?
RICHARD FRIERSON: The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law is the largest organization of forensic psychiatrists in the country. It's about 2,000 members.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Of forensic psychiatrists?
RICHARD FRIERSON: All forensic psychiatrists, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Now, in 2016, you received an award from that organization, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that was the Seymour Pollack Award?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What is that? What was that for?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's given for outstanding contributions in education and training in forensic psychiatry.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then currently -- from October of 2018, you were actually elected and you're actually president of that body right now, aren't you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I am president until October.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You've published two books?
RICHARD FRIERSON: One's in press, but yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And I've counted up maybe 12 different book chapters?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You have been qualified in South Carolina courts as an expert in forensic psychiatry over 300 times?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you have done over 3,500 court-ordered competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility examinations, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Your Honor, the State would offer Dr. Frierson as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry.
BOYD YOUNG: No objection.
THE COURT: I've done it twice now. He's offering an opinion in the field of forensic psychiatry. He can offer opinions based upon his training, expertise, experience. Continue on.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. For a Court's Exhibit, I have a copy of his curriculum vitae and that's Court's 95 that's already been marked.
THE COURT: Right, it will be marked as a Court's Exhibit.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And Court's 94 is actually a copy of his report.
THE COURT: I thought was already in as some other Court's Exhibit, but that's okay.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Well, I may have told her wrong.
THE COURT: It's okay. If she's got it twice, she'll figure it out. It's okay to have in as a Court's Exhibit twice.
COURT REPORTER: And I do have those as 94 and 95, but I'll look back on it later. (Whereupon, Court's Exhibit 94 and 95 were marked for identification only.)
SHAWN GRAHAM: Dr. Frierson, you became involved in this case after the Defendant put forward an insanity defense and the Court ordered an examination and it was assigned to you, is that correct -- or, I'm sorry, actually, you had done the competency evaluation before?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. I first became involved in 2016 when the Court sent an order for an evaluation of Mr. Jones' competency to stand trial, could he understand what was going on in court and work with his attorneys.
SHAWN GRAHAM: How many times have you interviewed Tim Jones?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Twice in 2016 for that evaluation and then an additional four times beginning September of 2018, November of 2018 and twice in March of this year for the insanity or criminal responsibility evaluation.
SHAWN GRAHAM: How many hours have you spent talking to him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Nineteen.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Why so many?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because this is not an easy case. It's complicated. There's a lot going on. I wouldn't want to --
SHAWN GRAHAM: So you would agree with me that anybody that's offering a diagnosis should spend the time --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think so, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- talking?
RICHARD FRIERSON: And, you know, you're always reviewing records, they never end. You would think you're done and then here they send a whole -- more CDs full of thousands of pages. So sometimes you interview a person and then you get this other stuff. And you say wait a minute, I've got to see them again and ask them about this because I didn't know about this.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you said this was the biggest amount of data you've had in any case?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Let me show you what's been marked State's 204 for identification and ask you if that is a excerpt of the copy of the report talking about the sources of information that you reviewed in this case?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm just making sure it matches what I have.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes, sir. Take your time.
RICHARD FRIERSON: There were 295 sources, so yes, that's an excerpt.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Your Honor, the State would offer 204 into evidence at this time.
BOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, we would have an issue. (Whereupon, a bench conference was held in the presence of the jury but out of the hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: Subject to the redactions that the Court suggested, I'll allow it.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. (WHEREUPON, State's Exhibit number 204 was admitted into evidence.)
SHAWN GRAHAM: So there was a Court order asking you, Dr. Frierson, to assess the Defendant for criminal responsibility and capacity to conform?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That was the second order, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What is criminal responsibility in big terms?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Criminal responsibility is another word for the insanity defense or evaluating someone's mental state at the time of the crime. So I was asked to render an opinion as to whether at the time of the crime Mr. Jones would have been criminally responsible. In South Carolina we have a definition for that that's based in a statute. The definition is a person is not responsible if at the time of the act constituting the alleged offense, he or she lacked the capacity to distinguish legal or moral right from legal or moral wrong or to recognize the particular acts charged, the actual crimes, as legally or morally wrong. If someone is unable to do that, then they're eligible for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Thank you, Doctor. So what is it, when it talks about a moral -- I mean, a mental disease or defect, what does that mean?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Generally, a mental disease or defect is something that is defined by DSM-5 or they have a recognized mental disorder that the American Psychiatric Association categorization says this is a legitimate mental illness. Typically, to get to something so severe that it is going to appear knowledge of wrongfulness, either legal or moral, it has to be a severe mental illness.
SHAWN GRAHAM: When you said DSM-5, what is the DSM-5?
RICHARD FRIERSON: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What psychiatrists and psychologists use to make diagnoses?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. It's developed so that if I say someone has, let's say, obsessive compulsive disorder, another psychiatrist reading my medical records would know what I'm talking about. It's defined in that -- the criteria for the diagnosis are contained in that manual.
SHAWN GRAHAM: When you talk about legal and moral right and wrong, what are you talking about? What are you having to try to determine?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Like, legal, do they know it was a crime against man? Do they know what they did was wrong, a criminal act? Do they realize it was a crime they were committing?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then the morality part?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Is it against the law of God. Somehow it's morally wrong to do this.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Society?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Society, right. Not law enforcement, but that people would find it morally --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Not a value choice? Not a choice that I might make? You would have to weigh that choice against the morality of society --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's what you're looking at, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Capacity to conform, what is that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Capacity to conform is another issue which we were asked to evaluate. If a person knew right from wrong legally and morally, but they couldn't conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, then they're eligible for a verdict of guilty but mentally ill. In other words, to say someone lacked the capacity to conform, they couldn't resist from doing it. They were acting under some irresistible impulse or they had no other choice in their mind.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And I think your report, which you have up there with you, and I've made a Court's Exhibit. It's 40 -- 52 pages, does that sound about right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that documents what your diagnosis is, everything you reviewed and highlights what you felt was to be important in reaching your conclusions. Is that fair to say?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct. I mean, certainly, I don't talk about every single thing. I mentioned it in the list of things that I reviewed, but if -- some of the school records, for example, of the children, which I reviewed, I didn't think information needed to be in my report because it wasn't relevant to the issues that I'm looking at. So I tried to put everything here that I thought was relevant to issues of criminal responsibility and capacity to conform.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So big picture was Exhibit 204 that's in the State is a list of everything you looked at?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What you wrote in your report is what you felt was important to reaching your conclusion?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. Part of my job as an evaluator is to shuffle through this mess of amount of material and say what evidence in this material has relevance to Mr. Jones' mental state at the time of the alleged offense.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So things that you would consider would be maybe observations by people?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Coworkers, friends, people who came in contact with him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Certainly.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Those are obviously important. Also, I guess a big part of it is, is what he tells you during those 19 hours of conversations you had. Is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: What he tells me is important. What he does is important or what he -- his actions.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Actions speak louder than words?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But the words that --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Sometimes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- you accept for true is what he told you, is that fair to say? That's what your decision is based on?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I have to make a decision as to what he's telling me is supported by evidence, so it's a combination of both. I certainly don't believe everything a criminal defendant tells me is true. But unless I have reason to suspect that it's not, I initially give them the benefit of the doubt, then I look at evidence to make sure it corresponds with what they're telling me. In this case, we also had a tremendous amount of phone, smart phone documentation as far as what he searched, what websites he visited. What he was looking at and what someone is doing on their phone can be very revealing about their state of mind at the time.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Is this one of the first cases that you've done that has that kind of information?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I've had others, but not to this detail. I've never had a case where I had to have a special program installed on my computer just so I could learn how to navigate all that information.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But you found information important and helpful?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You'd agree with me that it's pretty much an extension of what he's thinking and doing?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: At that time?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: One of the first things you address in your report is his claim of auditory hallucinations, which are hearing voices, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, he calls them hearing voices.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's what he started with?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But during the course -- that's what he told the police, that he heard voices?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Now, there's no evidence that he told anybody -- you didn't find any evidence in anything you reviewed, and you got evidence from the State and the Defense, about him hearing voices or claiming to hearing voices before he got arrested by the police, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Not that I recall.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So after he gets arrested by the police is the first --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I mean, someone said they heard him talking to himself one time from another room and I think -- that doesn't mean he's hearing voices, but it could. Sometimes people with major mental illness talk back to what they're hearing. But other than that, no.
SHAWN GRAHAM: I understand. Once he gets stopped by the police, though, he starts talking about hearing voices. You've spent 19 hours with him. Over the course of that, it's my understanding that when you asked him further and further what do you mean when you say voices, describe it to me, and you go down, that changes?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Or you get a better understanding of it? Maybe that is a better way to say it.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. And I think that -- like, I asked, are you hearing a voice like I'm talking to you in this room, like someone is in the room talking to you. And he would say no. And I said, well, can you give me an example of the voices that you're talking about and what they say. He would say, like -- he gave me the example of -- it's easy to come to my mind, of when Amber -- when he was convinced Amber was going to leave him, you know, the voices said, Oh, my God, what are you going to do? How are you going to take care of the children? Where are you going to get help? How are you going to be able to handle all this? You know, these are what most of us would think, have anxious thoughts while going through something stressful like having five kids and getting divorced from your wife and having sole custody and care taking. I mean, that's just what normal anxious people would think. So it became clear to me that what he calls voices are really anxious thoughts that he doesn't like experiencing, that are unpleasant.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's what -- he agrees with you, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: During your conversations -- that's not your opinion, that's an agreement that the two of you reached?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He agreed with me, yes. He, at one point, in November in the evaluation, I only heard a voice sounding like something talking to me outside of my head twice in my life and very briefly. And the first time was when he was ten years old and he says his mother told him -- his stepmother, I think her name was Carolyn, that she didn't want him around anymore. He says my imaginary friend told me to kill myself.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that's when he was 10 or 12 --
RICHARD FRIERSON: And that would certainly make someone very anxious to have someone who has custody of you in part, I know he was living with his father, but if your stepmother said I don't want you around. And the other time, he says, on the drive back from the convenience store after buying cigarettes the night of the alleged offense that he heard a voice, which he described as a gremlin voice, which is sort of atypical, but he said it said to kill the kids. But it was very brief and fleeting.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That was coming from outside of his head?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's what he said, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And it said kill the kids?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that was after Nahtahn was dead and after he went to the gas station and bought --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- carton of cigarettes and came back?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: The only proof is him telling you that, though, correct? You're accepting that as true for the purpose of your opinion and diagnosis?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. There is a possibility that it's not true, but I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You had made a comment earlier when Mr. Young asked you about him not hearing voices anymore. And I think, if I understood you right, you were explaining that an SSI can stop those anxious thoughts, not a voice --
RICHARD FRIERSON: The SSRI, but that --
SHAWN GRAHAM: SSR --
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- the way we treat anxiety and the way we treat depression pharmacologically, with medicines, is the same. The first line treatment is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or an SSRI. There's a bunch of them. I think I mentioned this morning. Prozac was the first one, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro. There's just tons of them available. And sometimes, people will respond to one, but not another. But anyway, those are the medicines used to treat depression and anxiety. And I think -- actually, one of them was prescribed for him by a family practitioner when he was undergoing the divorce. And I think his voices or anxious thoughts likely improved because he was getting one of those medicines.
SHAWN GRAHAM: One of the questions that Mr. Young had asked you had to do -- it was a series of questions. And it said if you have a family history of mental illness, you're more likely to get, for instance, a mental illness or schizophrenia, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: If you have a history of violence in your house, you may end up with a mental illness? We have to be careful what we say, don't we?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Childhood trauma is one risk factor.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: But it doesn't -- most people with childhood trauma don't necessarily go on to develop mental illness.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Drug use, the same thing?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Head trauma, the same thing?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So just because you have one or all of those doesn't mean that you will have mental illness, does it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You still have to go to the criterium of the diagnosis in the DSM-5?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right, that's what we rely on. We don't rely on other tests or scans or genetics. I mean, it's interesting to know genetic background, that's why we ask the family history. It's very clear his mother had schizophrenia and had a severe case of schizophrenia. I mean, she was on -- hospitalized for very long periods of time. She was on medications throughout her life, including medications that are sort of used as a last resort. Like if you fail all these other medicines, we'll give you one called Clozaril, which she, I believe, is taking now or, at least, in the last records that I saw. But having a parent with schizophrenia raises your rate. Schizophrenia occurs in one in 100 people, so the incident of schizophrenia is one person. Having a parent with schizophrenia raises your rate of likely to develop it to somewhere between, let's say, ten and the maximum fifteen percent -- actually, it's like seven and fifteen percent, depending on what study you read. So to say that differently, if my parent has schizophrenia, there's, like, a seven to ten percent chance -- seven to fifteen percent chance that I'll get it, but there's a 85 to 93 percent chance I won't develop schizophrenia.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So as a psychiatrist, it's nice to know?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's nice to know there's a family history because you know well, you know, I'm going to try to check this out when I'm interviewing somebody.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Correct. But it doesn't have anything to do with the diagnosis?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Not making the diagnosis, no.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Same with head trauma, it's nice to know, but --
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's nice to know that this person has had a head injury because they are at increased risk for things. Then you've got to go --
SHAWN GRAHAM: You've got to go further?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Got to go further and ask those questions and do some --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Do some testing?
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- testing, right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: One other thing that Mr. Young had asked you about was hyper-religious. So if I use the term hyper-religiosity or hyper-religious, what does that mean?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That this person during periods of when they are ill or not stabilized on medication can have bizarre religious thoughts that are outside of an accepted cultural norm. I have a guy right now at the Department of Corrections that he believes he is -- he is Allah.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But when we get to that level of hyper-religious, hyper-religiosity, it affects your life, it affects your job?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. It causes impairment.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Correct, it causes impairment.
RICHARD FRIERSON: For example, he's gotten in trouble assaulting people when they don't believe him. He feels disrespected.
SHAWN GRAHAM: When you were looking at Mr. Jones' religious beliefs and backgrounds and practices, you did not find him to be hyper-religious, did you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. I mean, not in a mental illness sense, no.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He's very religious.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Very conservative?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Very conservative Apostolic Pentecostal. You know, I know other people that I've met across my life that are Apostolic Pentecostals where they speak in tongues, they do a lot of things that I -- it's not been in my religious experience, but I wouldn't call that mental illness by any stretch of the imagination.
SHAWN GRAHAM: One of the -- of after hearing the voices, one of the next things you talk about in your report is his suicide -- or attempted suicide attempt that Mr. Young was asking you about, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So he first said that he heard voices telling him to kill himself, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's what he reported to the SCDC staff?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because he had missed a dose of medicine, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And after that and to -- after that, a few days later, he had something different to say to SCDC, didn't he?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I was never suicidal. I was just mad.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He was mad over what?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Them not giving him his medicine.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And I think you actually talked to him and asked him about it and he told you, "I was terribly mad they withheld my meds." Does that sound correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you watched the video and you said he was ambivalent, I think is the word you used to describe the attempt?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I said he appeared ambivalent.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What does that mean? What do you mean by that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: If someone is definite that this is what they want to do, they will do it. He appeared to be struggling with whether to actually do this or not on the video. I don't think anybody approaches suicide without some degree of ambivalence. But the fact that it went on for so long without a clear attempt, to me, said he's not certain.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Do you think what you looked at was consistent with anger at having his meds withheld and him showing out a little bit?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It could be. I mean, I'm not a mind reader.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Next in your report, you go into his psychiatric history. We're on Page 21 now, Doctor.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Okay.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What was the first psychiatric record that you found? That would have been the Navy record, I think, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, the first record I have is from the Navy.
SHAWN GRAHAM: From, I'm sorry?
RICHARD FRIERSON: The Navy, the U.S. Navy.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's the one that Mr. Young was talking to you about?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And the diagnosis was depressive disorder not otherwise specified, alcohol dependence and cannabis or marijuana dependence, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He told you, though, when you were talking to him about it he was depressed because why?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He was not going to be able to be a Navy Seal. He was in pain with his hip that he had hurt in a previous car accident. He didn't think he was going to be able to finish basic training due to the physical demands and the pain that he was in.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Did that explanation seem appropriate with the diagnosis?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: The next time you have any kind of mental health documentation, I believe, is after he was in jail in 2001, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: From the Illinois Department of Corrections?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Let me show you State's 205 for identification and ask if you recognize this document as being that evaluation that you reviewed?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Your Honor, the State would offer 205 in evidence at this time.
BOYD YOUNG: No objection.
THE COURT: Without objection, 205. (WHEREUPON, State's Exhibit number 205 was admitted into evidence.)
SHAWN GRAHAM: So, Doctor, this is a mental health evaluation dated May 28th of 2002 for Tim Jones, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What is the diagnosis at that time?
RICHARD FRIERSON: In the Illinois Department of Corrections, he received a diagnosis of poly-substance dependence, which means he was dependent on multiple drugs, and personality disorder not otherwise specified with narcissistic traits.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So what does that mean? What is a personality disorder not otherwise specified with narcissistic traits?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Personality disorder is just a long-term pattern of the way people interact with their environment that's maladaptive. Narcissistic persons, they want to be the center of attention. They want to be in control and control others. They require admiration from others. Those are -- they have fantasies of unlimited wealth, power, things like that.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Then the next documentation you had was the reports of the marriage family therapist, April Hames, from 2012. I'm not sure of the exact dates, the ten months of treatment that he had with her?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right, during his divorce.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he was going to see her about, basically, anxiety about his marriage breaking up and Amber cheating on him, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: The next thing you have is a treatment note from Dr. West from the Lexington Family Practice about Lorazepam. Can you tell the jury what that is and why he was taking it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. During this period of time, he lost a significant amount of weight, 188 to 166, according to her records. And this is according to the divorce and stress over the divorce. So she prescribed two medications for his anxiety. One was Citalopram or Celexa. Once again, that's one of those SSRIs, those medicines that we use to treat anxiety and depression. And she also gave him a medicine called Ativan to use prn or as needed. And that's a medicine similar to Valium or Xanax. It's a tranquilizer.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then I think he comes back on September 11th?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And reports that he doesn't need to take the medicine anymore and he doesn't have depression or anxiety, that is what he tells them, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. He said he's better. He doesn't feel the anxious -- I think he's adjusted to the fact that he and Amber are going to be splitting up, getting a divorce and --
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that was September 11th --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He resigned himself.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- of 2012?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That was September 11, 2012.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Moving on to his alcohol and drug use history. Can you tell the jury a little about what his alcohol use was?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He started drinking as a teenager, drinking heavily by the time he was 15. He said he was drinking a fifth a day of Everclear. Then around age 17, it got to the point where he didn't drink. He started getting shaky, having withdrawal symptoms. He said, I was a functional drunk. I was busy with school and a job so nobody paid attention. After that, he reported drinking two shots of whiskey once a week for a number of years, but that once he got married, he gave up all alcohol and drugs. And I'm not sure the marriage was the motivator behind that, but he had a religious conversion when he was in prison.
SHAWN GRAHAM: It says and then he marries Amber after he gets out?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he says for the eight years they're together, he doesn't drink and he doesn't do drugs, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct. Never had a DUI.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He said that he starts smoking marijuana at the age of 12?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. He would steal it from his father, multiple times a day, up to an eighth of an ounce a day. And he stopped, of course, after he got out of prison and during his marriage, but he started back after Amber separated -- after he and Amber separated.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he reported to you that he had paranoia with marijuana use, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, he said marijuana would make him paranoid. He gave an example of people in the -- he thought people in the grocery store, when he smoked, were talking about him.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then I think his -- he says he stops using marijuana, I think you said, two weeks before this?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's what he told me, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: From what I understand, spice kind of replaced marijuana for him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Spice took over.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In that summer?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Spice has similar effects, but is much more potent.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he told you that he was addicted to marijuana and then when he started spice, he became addicted to spice?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He was addicted to spice per his own reporting. Five times a day, he would use it.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You noted that a coworker and a former babysitter -- I'm on Page 26 now, made comments about what they perceived to be impairments or odd smells during that summer, is that correct? Second paragraph.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. One of his coworkers, a Kevin McKinney -- one day Mr. Jones called in sick to work and when Mr. McKinney called Mr. Jones to check on him, he said that he had slurred speech and was not making sense. A former babysitter said that he smelled like he ate a herb cabinet and always appeared high to her.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You've noted down from talking to him and from reviewing the records that you could actually see the spice purchases escalating in the summer of 2014 from June to August, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. He appeared to be using more and more, which would be consistent with developing what we call tolerance. It takes more and more to get the same effect, just like drinking more and more over time.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And I think your report indicates that in the last month, last four weeks leading up to the killing of his children, he spent about $230.00 dollars, four different purchases, at least, as far as we know from records?
RICHARD FRIERSON: As far as we know, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you also noted from the phone extraction, I'm assuming, that when he was in Orlando taking his kids to Disney Land, he was actually doing internet searches for spice, wasn't he?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He frequently did internet searches, especially if he was going out of town, he wanted to know is it legal in the state and where can you get it. Searching head shops and stuff on the internet.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In fact, the day -- the 29th, the day after he kills his children, he's looking for drugs on the internet, isn't he?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In addition to marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids, Scooby Snax, he also had some history with cocaine, powdered cocaine, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: A handful of times around age 19.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And the same with heroin as well, snorting heroin?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Twice at the age of 19.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then LSD?
RICHARD FRIERSON: A handful of times when he was about 18.
SHAWN GRAHAM: I believe he got -- drugs seemed to get him in trouble. There's a history of that, isn't there?
RICHARD FRIERSON: His earlier arrest occurred during periods where he was using drugs. He had marijuana at school, he got in trouble for that.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Moving on to his medical history. Anything in there that you deem to be worthy of talking about in addition to the traumatic brain injury, because I want to talk about that.
RICHARD FRIERSON: He has this weird thing called -- not weird, but glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase deficiency. And that's a fancy medical term, but, basically, it's a condition where if you take certain medications, like sulfur-based drugs, it can cause your red blood cells to break down. So you're not allergic to those drugs, you just should not take them. And so that was noted -- everybody that goes in the military is checked for that. And other than that, everything was pretty much minor, except he did have the head injury.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you described that, I think in the questioning from Mr. Young, as impressive?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think it's impressive --
SHAWN GRAHAM: You could see it with the naked eye, couldn't you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, you could look at his head and see it.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So what are you concerned about as a psychiatrist as the effect of a traumatic brain injury on his functioning? I know we have all talked about cognition, being smart, not smart, making decisions. So what does your frontal lobe do?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Planning, sequencing, higher levels of thinking that we need to do, thinking abstractly. For example, if I say somebody who doesn't -- to think abstractly is to use words as symbols. If I said people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. That means if you have something about your character or yourself that you're vulnerable, you don't like being criticized about, you shouldn't criticize others about the same thing. Someone who is not able to do that would say you'll break the glass. They're unable to say that has symbolic meaning when you say people who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Or what goes around, comes around. You know, someone who is concrete might say like a wheel. Whereas someone who can think abstractly would say do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you did wrong, wrong will come back to you. That would be an abstract way of thinking and that's what the frontal lobe does, helps you do.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Is that executive functioning, is that what that is?
RICHARD FRIERSON: In part, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Does the frontal lobe also control having an influence on behavior?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It can.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So tell the jury about that. What would you be looking for?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Frontal lobe damage can do lots of different things. We have people who become hypersexual. You know, they were pretty normal and, all of a sudden, they get a frontal head injury and their judgment goes out the window, because that's where judgment is, and they'll start being promiscuous, which was just never the case before they had the head injury. You could have people that have trouble with aggression and managing irritability. Our frontal lobe serves in part as our stopping mechanism when we're angry so that we don't go over a certain point. So a variety of different things can happen. It's behavioral manifestations of a frontal head injury. The best to categorize that and diagnose that is by history. How is this -- was this person different after the head injury than they were before?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And I think I heard you testify that you would expect those changes to manifest themselves within a year?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Oh, certainly, or to be noticed.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So in your review of all the documents that were provided to you by the State and the Defense, did you see anything that would support frontal lobe damage and the consequences of it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, I did, actually. The one thing that I saw, which was I was provided a report from a neuropsychologist who said he had an IQ of 87. I think I've testified to this before. And I'm like, there's just no way this guy got through Mississippi State University with a Summa Cum Laude computer engineering degree with an IQ of 87. So I had my own neuropsychologist come in and perform testing to locate his ability. And guess what, he did much, much better. He was in the highest percentiles in most of all the tests, or, at least, above 85 percent, which is what you would expect.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So --
RICHARD FRIERSON: So I had to figure out why was he so low when the neuropsychologist for the Defense tested him. And one of the things is he was on 320 mg of Geodon, which is a very sedating medicine. And having your brain slowed by that medicine can make your results less than what you can actually do. And in fact, he told our neuropsychologist that he didn't do well with the Defense neuropsychologist because he was slowed by the Geodon he was on.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He told -- Tim Jones told Dr. Kruse that he was slowed by the Geodon?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Other than the 89 -- or the 87 IQ that was reported out, do you see any other evidence of any kind of impairment or deficit or history of behavioral problems related to a TBI?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I do not.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Do you see any executive functioning problems, the history of, anything reported, documentation related to the traumatic brain injury?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. There's no way he would be able to do his job at Intel if he had significant executive functioning problems.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Anything about controlling his emotions?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. He has a -- he has a history of being a strict disciplinarian with his kids, but I cannot relate that to his head injury. I also -- you know, he had evidence of gullibility, get rich quick schemes on the computer or TV, he would sort of gravitate towards that. According to his grandmother when I spoke to her, he was like that at a very early age, long before the head injury. So I couldn't contribute that to the head injury either.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Let's move on to -- I think we've discussed -- in big terms, you discussed his success at school at Mississippi State. We've talked about the military. We've talked about the Illinois Department of Corrections. Let's talk about what happens after he graduated Mississippi State. So starting over on 31 now, adult function, employment and education history. Obviously, he did well in school?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He did very well in school, graduated with a 3.81 GPA from Mississippi State as a President Scholar and was a member of a Honor Society's Phi Kappa Phi, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu. He had worked -- he made those good grades while working some part time to help support his family.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he was married and had kids, too, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He was married and had kids, so he was balancing a whole bunch of things well. And then after he graduated, he got the job at Intel here performing validation engineering. He told me that meant those processes in your computer, his job is to try to make them break, try to break them. He made approximately $70,000 a year. They moved to Leesville from Starkville, Mississippi --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Did he -- let me ask you a question right there. Did he explain why he wanted to live out in the country? Was there a reason for it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, because he was tired of living in an apartment in Starkville. He wanted space. He also has an interest in homesteading.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What is homesteading?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Living off the land, so to speak. He had animals, chickens. He had -- I can't remember everything he had, a goat, dogs, cats, chickens, turkeys, rabbits and three goats. So having plenty of space --
SHAWN GRAHAM: So the fact that he wanted --
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- lots of land.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Go ahead, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's what he was interested in.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What he was interested in, which is my question, I guess. Just because he was interested in homesteading and wanted to live in the country doesn't mean he's crazy, does it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I hope not.
SHAWN GRAHAM: During the summer of 2014, he applied to and was accepted to medical school in the Caribbean, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that is something that had been a dream of his for a long time, isn't that true?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He's had lots of interests, languages. I mean, he's very bright and bright people tend to have a variety of interest. But he would study Hebrew, he would study, I think at one time Russian, maybe, just lots of languages, money, day trading, homesteading. He became interested at one point in free masonry. But he wanted to live in the country. He thought about going to medical school because I think he -- he said he felt somewhat bored with his job at Intel after a while.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That he was bored with it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Bored a little bit. He was doing the same thing over and over. He wanted to help people and he wanted to see if he could design skin that would grow on metal. He wanted to do some sort of plastic surgeon is what he told me.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You had mentioned his discipline style. Did he tell you where the basis for that style came from?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What did he tell you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Shortly after he and Amber married, they moved to Pennsylvania. There, they met a Mennonite family and -- I'm sorry, you asked me about the discipline?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes, and that's exactly -- you're talking about the Mennonite family.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. He met a Mennonite family and he was just impressed with how well behaved their children were. They had eight or ten children and he said they were extremely well behaved. He said the Mennonites corrected their children with words and spankings. He always wanted his children to be well behaved. He told me that he reserved corporal or spanking for two particular offenses, that would be lying and fighting. But he became interested in having well-behaved children and wanted to model his upbringing of his children like this Mennonite family.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He believed in corporal punishment for, he told you, he told you lying and fighting? Those are the two instances when he would use corporal punishment?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, lying, or not telling the truth, and fighting.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You also, in addition to reviewing records and reviewing police reports and mental health and whatever else was provided to you, you actually called some people and talked to the ones you wanted to follow-up with, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: One of those was the Defendant's father, Mr. Timothy Jones, Sr., correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He told you that his son was well behaved and did well in school?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He said he didn't know anything about his son having any self-harm behaviors?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's correct. We had seen that in the military records, so I wanted to ask him about that.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Well, I was going to say, so why did you ask his father that question?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because it was in the military records.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So the military records, he said that he did do self-harm behavior?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. Or it says he has a history of cutting on himself with a paperclip and maybe -- I can't remember specifically, a knife or paperclip. And he denied that to me, he goes, I've never said that and I've never done that. And so I wanted to ask the father because you don't just trust what a Defendant tells you. The father said he had no knowledge of that.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He told you that he did not see a personality change in his son or any change in his son after the traumatic brain injury?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he said that he had no knowledge of his son having any kind of auditory hallucinations, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He said that he hadn't talked to -- he talked to his son a few days before Labor Day. There were plans for them to come, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then Friday after the children were killed, that day, he called his dad and said that something had come up and canceled. Do you know what he told his dad?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I believe he told him something came up at work.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Said I won't be coming to Mississippi.
SHAWN GRAHAM: The next thing that you talked to him about is the next time he sees the Defendant, which is in Mississippi after the car is stopped when he and the Mississippi authorities are trying to find out where the children are, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And how does he describe his son to you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You want me to use his words?
SHAWN GRAHAM: I can use it if you want me to do it.
RICHARD FRIERSON: He said he was bat shit crazy, all over the place, talking crazy. I have never seen him like that. I almost didn't recognize him. That was the day after his arrest about 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. He was arrested the night before, I think, about 9:00 p.m. or something.
SHAWN GRAHAM: 9:00 p.m., I think, on the 6th, yes sir.
RICHARD FRIERSON: So his mental status -- and that's the same time that the officer said he was sweating profusely.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And I think he -- he told you that he was using spice as he was driving around, correct?
SHAWN GRAHAM: I mean, State's 58 is --
RICHARD FRIERSON: And these symptoms would be consistent with withdrawal from spice.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So you get a high on the spice, but when you're addicted to it, your body wants it. So when you say withdrawal, what do you mean?
RICHARD FRIERSON: What he displayed appeared to be consistent with withdrawal from synthetic cannabis and spice.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Sweating, it's delirious and behaves bizarrely. But then by the next 24 hours, that's better.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Right. So there's a difference. How does he describe the next day? On the 28th, how does he describe his son?
RICHARD FRIERSON: On the next day, the Defendant looked, "A lot more like the Timmy I knew. He was more calm and -- more normal and calmed down."
SHAWN GRAHAM: And to you, those two descriptions a day apart are very important, aren't they?
RICHARD FRIERSON: They are very important because they indicate to me if this were psychosis due to schizophrenia, it shouldn't get better by itself without treatment.
SHAWN GRAHAM: If it was schizophrenia and he was crazy, foaming at the mouth or however you want to describe it, short of him getting on antipsychotic medication --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He should not have gotten better.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He shouldn't have gotten better. So it's your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry that it's related to drugs?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Specifically, synthetic cannabinoids, the Scooby Snax?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, the one's that is in his system when they tested his blood. His blood had the same chemical in it, AB, dash, P-I-N-A-C-A, I guess you say Pinaca, that his blood tested positive for that. And my understanding is the evidence from the car, the Scooby Snax bag, tested positive for the exact same chemical.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's correct.
RICHARD FRIERSON: And I wasn't aware of this chemical because it's not exactly in my area of expertise, but I called the toxicologist, the doctor, M.D., pathologist who ran the lab that tested it. And she even said, we don't even test for that anymore because spice is a moving target. Once they ban one substance, they put another one in it that makes you high. They change the chemical just a little bit. So AB Pinaca is something they were putting in spice back in 2014, but they don't even test for that anymore because --
SHAWN GRAHAM: It's changed to something else now?
RICHARD FRIERSON: They're using something else to get the same high.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So if you use marijuana or, in this case, synthetic cannabinoids, does it put you at increased risk for psychotic symptoms?
SHAWN GRAHAM: When we say psychotic symptoms, what do we mean?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Hallucinations, acting bizarrely, disorganized thinking, even delusions at times.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Doesn't have to, but it could?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, it can do it to a normal person or a person without any family history.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But it doesn't have to happen?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It doesn't have to happen, no.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Smoking synthetic cannabinoids can cause psychotic events later, not just at that moment, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, it can last -- typically, a substance-induced psychosis, you could have symptoms that continue up to a month after your last known use.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In addition to talking to the Defendant's father, you also talked to Ms. Roberta Thornsberry, his grandmother, correct?
SHAWN GRAHAM: She, again, answered your question, she didn't have any knowledge about self-harm?
SHAWN GRAHAM: She said he was a good kid, didn't get in trouble much. She talks about visiting him in Atlanta, Georgia?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you and her worked together and figured out the dates, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, she was -- I don't know whether she believed me or not, but I said I don't think this was the weekend before, I think it was the first weekend in August.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you figured that out from --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Phone records and the texts they sent back and forth and the banking records that paid for the room at the Embassy Suites.
SHAWN GRAHAM: She described him as sweating a lot?
SHAWN GRAHAM: That was one of the things she did. That's important because that's also consistent with synthetic cannabinoid use, isn't it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, it can be, but it's also August in the South. It's -- it's May in the south right now and I'm hot, so.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Christina Ehlke, that's the babysitter?
RICHARD FRIERSON: One of them.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes, the last babysitter for Gabriel and Abigail that last month and half of their lives?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Was at the house or trailer near where the children lived with the Defendant?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct, next door.
SHAWN GRAHAM: How did she describe him socially to you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: She said he was weird somewhat, geeky, typical computer guy, sort of nerdy. She did not think he was mentally ill and she was not aware that he was using drugs.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Tashiro Inabinet, who is Tashiro Inabinet?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He was Mr. Jones' first assigned counselor when he got to the South Carolina Department of Corrections for safekeeping.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So do you know how long -- what kind of contact did Mr. Inabinet have with Mr. Jones?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He had almost daily contact until Mr. Jones was transferred to a different facility.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Do you know approximately how long that would have been?
RICHARD FRIERSON: If I can look at my timeline, I can tell you. I think it was sometime -- he went into the Department of Corrections on September 12th, I believe. He was transferred as a safekeeper. A safekeeper is somebody that a jail doesn't feel comfortable housing them because he thinks they will be a target of other inmates. He was concerned about the Defendant's safety. So the Governor of South Carolina has to sign an order ordering the Department of Corrections to keep this person and they're a safekeeper, so they're pretty much locked down a lot. So he was there, and that was at the time, I believe, at Kirkland Correctional Institution. He stayed there -- I can't recall -- I mean, it's like a year later or more when he was, I believe, transferred to Lee.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Do you feel comfortable that Mr. Inabinet had almost daily contact with Mr. Jones for a year?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Or more. Okay. And it's true that Mr. Inabinet told you when you spoke with him that Mr. Jones complained of hearing voices, correct?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he also told you, though, that Mr. Inabinet never observed any -- never observed the Defendant to be responding to internal stimuli as if truly hallucinating, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So what does that mean?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Many times when people are having psychotic hallucinations and auditory voices, they'll be distracted. You'll ask them something and they'll appear like they're listening to something else that you can see that becomes sort of obvious. Or sometimes, you can see them whispering under their breath to whoever is talking to them, to whatever auditory hallucination they're experiencing, talk back to them. And he never noticed that behavior.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So that would be -- what Mr. Inabinet told you about no corresponding behavior would actually be consistent with your conversation with Mr. Jones and having the voices change to not being voices and being thoughts?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right, anxious thoughts. I think that's what he was referring to when he says he's hearing voices.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You also spoke with Beverly Woods and Jim Page, who also were at the South Carolina Department of Corrections?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, this might be one typo. I think it's Beverly Wood.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Wood?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I put an S there, but I think her last name is actually Wood.
SHAWN GRAHAM: I'm going to cross it out. Ms. Wood, Dr. Wood, she is a clinical psychiatrist for the Department of Corrections?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. She's the lead psychiatrist for the Department of Corrections.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What did she tell you about her treatment course and her diagnoses with Mr. Jones?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, she stated that she based her diagnosis on what he was telling her. And what I specifically wanted to know was, was she aware of the extent of his use of spice prior to him getting to the Department of Corrections or being arrested. And she was not. He had said he used cannabis and alcohol and spice, but she was not aware, had not been provided information as to exactly how much of that he had done.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Do you know the history of her diagnosis changing for Mr. Jones?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Would you tell the jury what it was and give them the timeline for that, please?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well --
BOYD YOUNG: I think Dr. Wood can testify to what her diagnosis was and the reason that she gave it.
RICHARD FRIERSON: What I'll say is I reviewed the records.
THE COURT: Fair enough.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Your Honor, I've got this witness up there. I'm on cross, so I can go into whatever I want. If he wants to call his witnesses, he can do that, too. I'm asking for him -- for purpose for his reasons.
THE COURT: I want to hear about his diagnosis. You can ask the question. Go ahead.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Your objection is noted. A His -- her initial diagnosis was something we call psychosis not otherwise specified. And what that is, it's a basket term, meaning he's talking about voices or hallucinations, auditory hallucinations. I don't know if it's schizophrenia. I don't know if it's drug induced. You know, it -- it's just saying he's reporting these symptoms and I don't know exactly what the exact diagnosis is. So for right now, I'm just going to call this psychosis not otherwise specified. Then at some point, it was changed to schizo-effective disorder.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What is schizo-effective disorder?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Schizo-effective disorder means that you have met the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, but in addition to that, you have had symptoms of either a depressed mood or manic episodes that have not been brief. You've had ongoing mood symptoms as well.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In the documents that you received from SCDC, did you see support for that diagnosis?
SHAWN GRAHAM: What was lacking?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's not documented that he met the criteria that would be in the DSM-5 to get a diagnosis of schizo-effective disorder. All it just says is complains of mood swings and then the diagnosis changed.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Your conversation with her, she told you that when he said --
BOYD YOUNG: Objection, pitting.
THE COURT: Don't pit the witnesses. Go ahead with the different diagnosis.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You called her for information?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I met with her.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You met with her. What, if anything, did she tell you about whether he displayed disorganized thinking or behavior?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He never displayed disorganized thinking.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And why is that important?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because that's a common symptom of schizophrenia and one of the main symptoms that you look for in addition to hallucinations and delusions.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then I think you said she was not aware of the extent of the synthetic cannabinoid use, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Based on your conversations with her, what did she tell you about her diagnosis in retrospect?
RICHARD FRIERSON: She said she believed that he may have had more --
BOYD YOUNG: Objection, pitting.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. He can answer that. A She thought in retrospect, looking back that, perhaps, he had more of a mood disorder than a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And a mood disorder is what?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Major depression, bipolar disorder.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Moving on in your report, mental status exam. What is a mental status exam?
RICHARD FRIERSON: A mental status exam is a series of questions we ask everybody that just looks at their overall cognitive functioning. We ask do you know what today is, do you know the date, the day of the week, are they oriented. We ask them to remember three things. We want to see if they repeat them after five minutes. Is their memory intact. We test their concentration. We ask them to spell the word world backward, D-L-R-O-W, that requires concentration. We ask them to interpret a proverb, like the ones I gave you before, what goes around comes around, glass houses. Just to see if they can think abstractly, that's looking at the frontal lobe function. We ask them about mood. We ask them, knowledge, can you name the president? Who were some past presidents before him? How far can you go back?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Anything unusual about the mental status --
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, his mental status examination has always been normal. He comes across as very bright by his vocabulary.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Now, you've also -- you know, we touched on it briefly early. You wanted some neuropsychological testing, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. I wanted to see if this head injury could -- if we could measure any functional problems with his brain as a result of having the head injury.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What were the results as far as his cognitive abilities?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Overall, his cognitive abilities were intact. There was no clinically significant findings.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In addition to cognitive testing, was there also other testing?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. There was some personality testing and there was also some testing, what we call validity testing.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So what is validity testing?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Validity testing is testing designed to measure his efforts and whether he could be exaggerating or feigning symptoms.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What, if anything, was reported to you from those tests as far as exaggeration of psychotic symptoms?
RICHARD FRIERSON: There was evidence on those tests that would suggest he was feigning or exaggerating symptoms. However, I did not diagnose him malingering because I felt in judging that, that rather than maybe exaggerating symptoms to be found insane, he was exaggerating symptoms to convince himself that he's mentally ill so that he could live with what he did.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You gave him the benefit of the doubt again?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I mean, I've seen people malinger and I've diagnosed malingering lots and his wasn't -- I was actually surprised by his tests a little bit, but they are what they are.
SHAWN GRAHAM: We've used the word malingering. Tell the jury what malingering means.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Faking. If I say they're faking symptoms for cognitive -- for secondary gain, what I mean by that, to get disability or to get out of military service or, in this type of situation, to be found insane and not held responsible for what you did. Those are secondary gains, things outside of him that he's trying to get by exaggerating symptoms. And I didn't get the sense that that's what he was doing. I got the sense that he needed to -- he was always worried he would get schizophrenia. His mother had schizophrenia. He just assumed these anxious thoughts that he was having was evidence of schizophrenia because he didn't like it. And he was trying to convince himself so he could live with what he did.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Moving on to diagnostic formulation in your report. What is diagnostic formulation?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That means I take all the information I've gathered about his symptoms and I look at DSM-5 and say does he meet the diagnostic criteria for any of these disorders.
SHAWN GRAHAM: At the top of Page 42, you explain why schizo-effective disorder was not, in your opinion, an appropriate diagnosis, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Why is that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Schizo-effective disorder is similar to schizophrenia. And you have to -- in order to be diagnosed with either of them, you have to have two or more of the following for a significant portion of time during a one-month period. So not just fleeting, these have to be present for a significant amount of time for an entire month period, at least. And these include, one, delusions. I think he had paranoid thought about Nahtahn. I did not think it was an overtly delusional thought because it came out of nowhere.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So let's stop for a second. What's the difference between being paranoid and being delusional?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You can have paranoid thoughts that don't reach what we call delusional intensity. In other words, if I had said well, wait a minute, could it be that you -- that Nahtahn was not trying to harm you? And if it's not delusional, he would say well, maybe not. But delusions just don't start suddenly. They develop over time.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So what you're referring to as a paranoia right here is --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Paranoid thought that he may have motivated some of what he was doing.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Nahtahn's out to get me?
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's -- you're giving him credit for being true because the only place we know it's coming from is him, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's right, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for that one.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But there's no history, it's a one time event, and that's what he told you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, there had been some earlier thinking that Nahtahn and Merah wanted to be back with Amber, with their mom. But as far as -- he was very specific, when I woke up that day, everything was normal. I went to work. I had no paranoid thoughts about Nahtahn or anybody else in the family. He smoked spice all day -- or while he was at work. He comes home. He brings food. The outlet doesn't work, oh, Nahtahn has done -- someone has done something to the outlet. He thinks it's Nahtahn and he exercises Nahtahn until he confesses and he won't confess. And then Nahtahn, he says, stomped on his glasses. These expensive glasses he hadn't had very long, which I think probably made him madder, and he -- but he was not -- until that outlet was blown, he had no paranoid thoughts about Nahtahn. It was during the course of the discipline that he's, why isn't he telling me he did it.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And the reason we're discussing paranoia versus delusion is because to have schizophrenia, one of the things you need to have -- or one of the things you need to look for is delusions?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You have to have two of these things.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Delusion being one of them?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Paranoia is not on that list?
SHAWN GRAHAM: In addition, did you find he had any delusions? Did he have any fixed, long term beliefs?
RICHARD FRIERSON: In my opinion, no.
SHAWN GRAHAM: About anything?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you also noted that other than the night -- the day after his arrest, there has not been any disorganized speech or behavior?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. He was certainly disorganized the twenty-four hours after his arrest.
SHAWN GRAHAM: When his father was in the room and he was foaming at the mouth?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. That is a good description of disorganized behavior.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But other than that episode, you don't see that anywhere?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that's also one of the potential elements for schizophrenia?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So of the five criterium listed in the DSM-5 for schizophrenia, do you see whether he had any?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He may have had two periods of hallucinations that were very brief, one at age ten, if I believe what he's telling me, and maybe one that night. But once again, they have to be present for a significant portion of time during a one-month period. And a fleeting hallucination is not a significant portion of time during a one-month period. So he doesn't meet this criteria. But, more importantly, there's another criteria for schizophrenia that says the symptoms are not better accounted for by the use of illicit substances. So it's very hard to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia when someone's psychotic and they've been using substances and never been psychotic before. It makes medical sense to attribute it to the use of the drug or withdrawal from the drug.
SHAWN GRAHAM: When there's not a history of psychosis and you're not meeting the criterium, even if you met the criterium, you're supposed to go look for --
RICHARD FRIERSON: For drugs. You need to rule that out before you --
SHAWN GRAHAM: So you rule drugs out before you even start talking about anything else, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. Now, for example, let me give you -- if someone has schizophrenia, then they develop psychotic symptoms, there was no drug use, okay, and they were hospitalized and they were treated and all is well and good and they go back home. And then they get psychotic again and this time, there's drugs in their system. I would still say they have schizophrenia, they just happened to be using drugs. But in his case, there's no prior history of psychiatric symptoms. And the first time he presents twenty-four hours after his arrest with very disorganized behavior, we know there's synthetic cannabinoids in his blood, in his system and in his brain. And he's been using heavily and increasing his use in the months before this happened. That's why I attribute that behavior to the drugs.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Other than the audible voice that you give him credit for for saying on the night that he killed his four children after Nahtahn, did you see any other symptoms of psychosis?
SHAWN GRAHAM: He didn't even tell you any other symptoms of psychosis, did he?
SHAWN GRAHAM: He actually denied them when you asked him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I mean, you know, there's been a lot that he's a loner, doesn't have a lot of social, which can be seen in schizophrenia, but he desires relationships. He wants to have relationships. He downloaded books about how to meet women off the internet.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He has not exhibited disorganized speech and behavior. He didn't have anything you call a delusion. You don't see any functioning impairment with his traumatic brain injury or for any reason other than this event. Correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, he's losing weight over the summer. I mean, I think that's spice use.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes, sir. I was actually -- and I guess my question, I didn't ask it right. He did not exhibit any impairment in functioning?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, he was working. He was doing okay at work. He was able to hold his job. There's papers where he was planning meals, you know, what to eat Monday -- for the family. There were a lot of notebooks with that information. He was meeting his bills. Now, he had a tendency to overdraw his account many times. But he knew the money was coming, it was just like right before his deposit happened. But he was paying bills, paying for the after-school program for Merah, Nahtahn and Eli, or Elias.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He had described to SCDC and I think you followed up talking with him about visual permutations?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Tell the jury what that is and --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He said that he saw things on the wall, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
SHAWN GRAHAM: How many times did he tell you he saw -- how many times did he say that he had these visual permutations?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Several times to me. And these are very atypical for mental illness. You don't typically see this type of thing. And they're very common in malingering to have these fantastical-type hallucinations. But if you've ever been locked in a cell for 23 hours a day with nothing to do and no distractions, that type of environment can cause people to start imagining that they're seeing things. Once again, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and not diagnose him with malingering.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Your diagnosis for Mr. Jones to a reasonable degree of certainty as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry is what?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Substance-induced psychosis, which is the paranoia I was talking about that was related to his use of spice. That's one diagnosis. That resolved.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you're giving him credit when he tells you that he heard a voice? You're giving him credit for that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, hearing one voice is not a diagnosis make.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you're also giving him credit for, I guess, the paranoia about that one time being afraid of Nahtahn?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. And also, you know, thinking that maybe he and Merah might have something to do with the DSS allegations or they're conspiring to get back with Amber. I don't think a six and eight-year-old are -- I could be wrong, but are that sophisticated to do something like that.
SHAWN GRAHAM: As a forensic psychiatrist, you are aware that voluntary use of drugs is not a defense, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Let's move on to what he says happened that night, on Page 44. You've talked to him, I think, four different times, so it varies a little bit.
SHAWN GRAHAM: I don't know whether Your Honor wants to take a break or you want me to keep going?
THE COURT: Let's take a short break. I'm getting a signal from the jury. Don't talk about the case. Have you back here in a few. (WHEREUPON, the jury was excused from open court for a break.)
(WHEREUPON, a short break was taken.)
THE COURT: Bring the jury. (Whereupon, the jury came into open court at approximately 3:45 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right. CONTINUE CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GRAHAM:
SHAWN GRAHAM: Dr. Frierson, we had left off getting ready to discuss what Tim Jones told you happened that night. You talked to him numerous times. His story was similar, but with some slight differences, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right, his story is mainly consistent, there's just --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Would you tell the jury what his story was to you about what happened that night?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Can I just start that day?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes, the bottom of Page 44.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. He went to work that morning at Intel. He smoked Scooby Snax or spice, on the way to work, at lunch all the time. He mentioned an increase stress level at work due to a big project at work with a new processor coming out. He said the Scooby Snax would mellow him out. That he relied on that daily to take care of his anxious thoughts. He left work at 4:00 p.m. that day, went home and worked on his computer for two more hours prior to picking up his five children. During these two hours, he reported he used more spice. The youngest two children, that would be Elaine and Gabriel, were being taken care of at the neighbor's house by Ms. Ehlke. He picked up the three oldest children around 6:15 from Saxe Gotha Elementary School at an after-school program.
While in the car, he mentioned that he downloaded this song called Expander by Sasha on YouTube because the children had reported that in gym class they had listened to Sandstorm, which is a techno pop song that I think they used to play at USC football games. I don't know if they still do. They really enjoyed listening to that. Prior to going home, he purchased some dinner, takeout from IHop, for the family to eat at home. He said during dinner, he tried plugging in his laptop into an outlet near the front door and discovered that the outlet was nonfunctional or blown. He also said that the light above the stove was out and he thought something had happened to several of the electrical circuits in the house or, at least, one. He said I knew the kids had done something. Through a series of questions, I ascertained that it was Nahtahn. During questioning, Nahtahn appeared fidgety, wouldn't look at me in the eye and he clammed up.
He said he could read the nonverbal cues of his children and knew when one of them was lying. He said because Merah and Eli said they didn't do it right away, I knew it wasn't the two of them. I narrowed it down to Nahtahn. He noted that Nahtahn had an unusual interest in electricity. He was afraid that if Nahtahn kept playing with electricity, he would hurt himself. And he gave me an example that Nahtahn had climbed up on the sink in the bathroom and unscrewed a lightbulb about one or two weeks previously. We noted in evidence that that would correlate an August 16th internet search that he did on child killed by electrical outlet and another search on electrical deaths. Mr. Jones confirmed that he performed this search around the time that Nahtahn had unscrewed the lightbulb. So he began what he calls PTing, or physical training, Nathan for the purpose of obtaining a confession. This is one of his ways of discipline. It's a common military term, PTing. He also admitted that he worked him, spanked him and slapped him on the behind. He said PT involves a hundred pushups, a hundred situps and a couple hundred squats. Not continuous, but in sets of give me ten, give me twenty. He did not think this was excessive because he and the children would do sometimes what's called insanity workouts, which I believe is a computer workout --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Workout --
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- program --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes.
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- that's pretty intense.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He gave you different reports of how long the PTing lasted, didn't he?
SHAWN GRAHAM: I think one time, he told you -- in one interview, he told you it went on for one or two hours, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. And then another time, he said it was just for 20 to 30 minutes. During September interview, he said this went on for one or two hours. And then during the March interview, one of the March interviews, he said this went on for 20 to 30 minutes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he told you as he was PTing Nahtahn, when he was asking him what happened to the outlet, he told you, quote, " He wouldn't tell me what he did, he was defiant."
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. "And when he wouldn't --
SHAWN GRAHAM: That was his word?
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- tell me, that's when I thought he was plotting against me." But he had not had that thought before that period of time.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He told you that that's the first time he became afraid of Nahtahn?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That Nahtahn might be trying to use electricity to do something to him so he could go back and live with his mother. So at some point during this, he received a phone call from Amber. Based on phone records, she called at 7:10 p.m. and talked for a minute and twenty seconds after receiving -- after he missed four of her previous calls starting at 7:00 p.m., which was their normal time that she would call the children every night.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Let me back you up, Doctor, because I missed something that I wanted to ask you. Isn't it true that he told you in one of your interviews that he had never thought that any of the children would want to physically harm him prior to that night?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Physically harm, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Right. So --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He thought they might want to go back to Merah, but he didn't think they were going to physically harm him.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That they might want to go back to Amber, the mother?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm sorry, Amber. Sorry.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay. Then there was a phone call with Amber, actually, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Uh-huh.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What's his description about that phone call?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He just said he heard Nahtahn tell his mother, It was an accident, Mommy. And then he reported he became enraged because Nahtahn had told his mother what happened, but wouldn't confess to him.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You've got enraged in quotes, so that's the word he used, I'm assuming --
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- right?
SHAWN GRAHAM: He was enraged because Nahtahn told his mother and would not confess to him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: And then at some point, Ms. Jones told him to be easy with Nahtahn.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And how did that make him feel or --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I got mad at her and told her to shut the F up, that she was not going to tell me how to raise the kids. And he always felt that she took Nahtahn's side. Later, in an interview in March, he said, I don't like her telling me how to raise the kids when she wasn't around. And that during their marriage, his disciplining of the children was a bone of contention between them.
SHAWN GRAHAM: How does he describe Nahtahn's behavior during the PTing process?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Never said anything.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Nahtahn never said a word?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Never said a word. He did take those eyeglasses off the side table and stomped on them.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So during the middle of PTing when he's not saying anything to his father, he told you that Nahtahn went over to a side table, picked up his dad's glasses and threw them on the floor and stomped on them?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And how did that make him feel?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He added that Nahtahn was quote, "Like a hardened criminal during a confession."
SHAWN GRAHAM: What does he tell you happens next?
RICHARD FRIERSON: And that this was very alarming to him because Nahtahn had never done this before. He reported that I did anything I could to get it out of him.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Those were his words, I did anything I could to get it out of him?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Uh-huh.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: And, "The point of spanking is to break their will." At some point, he wasn't getting anything from Nahtahn, so he decided to send Nahtahn to bed early as further punishment.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then what does he say happens next?
RICHARD FRIERSON: A few minutes later, he went to the bedroom to check on Nahtahn and he shook Nahtahn by the shoulders and asked him to tell him what happened and Nahtahn started losing his balance and collapsed in his arms. He stated, He just died. He fell to the ground and died. I didn't do anything to cause him to die.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And what does he say happens --
RICHARD FRIERSON: That caused me to lose my mind. I knew he had died, I lost my mind. I was aghast. He put Nahtahn on the bed, left the room for a few minutes, returned with some water, hoping Nahtahn had just passed out. However, he realized he was dead. He stated, I went into a mad panic. What am I going to do? He described that intrusive thoughts, what he had described in the past as voices, started when Nahtahn died. And that he had not had any of these voices or intrusive thoughts until Nahtahn died. He considered calling 911.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Why didn't he call 911?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He said they'll think I did it. They're going to say I killed him.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's his words in quotes, right?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Then what did he say happened next?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He reported telling Merah and Eli that I think he's dead. Merah said that Nahtahn was not breathing. He sent Merah and Eli to watch television in the living room.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then at some point, you asked him about his discipline of Nahtahn, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I said, do you think you might have been too harsh on Nahtahn?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And what did he say?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He said, In retrospect, you know, looking back, maybe I was, but I had no intent to kill or harm Nahtahn.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Then what does he say he does next?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He said he went to smoke a cigarette and try to calm himself down. And then this is where there's a difference. In September, when I first saw him for this evaluation, he said I tried to smoke spice to calm down.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So in the first interview, Nahtahn's dead and he tries to smoke spice?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: And he said, but it wasn't working.
SHAWN GRAHAM: It wasn't working --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I mean, he was still panicked.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That story changed later, though, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. In March interviews, he stated that he did not use spice that night, that he had used it at 4:00 to 6:00 o'clock when he was at home working, but did not use it again until after all the children were dead. So that's just where his use of spice -- it really doesn't --
SHAWN GRAHAM: The next thing --
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- make that difference to me, but, anyway. So the next thing he did was he performed a YouTube search for American History X rape scene. That was at 8:30.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You asked him about that, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. Because, to me, that's just weird.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So when you asked him what was American History X rape scene and why did you search it, what --
RICHARD FRIERSON: It is a violent male on male shower rape scene.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Did he say he searched it or did he say that he watched it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He had seen this movie previously and he watched this scene and he said he thought I'm going to go to prison and they're going to do bad things to me. The inmates will think I'm a baby killer.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Those are his words, "I'm going to go to prison and they're going to do bad things to me. The inmates will think I'm a baby killer"?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. And then I asked him if he thought the other inmates would be morally outraged to him and he said yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: When you asked that question about -- well, so in his timeline to you, does he watch American History X between Nahtahn's death and the death of the other or is it after all the children -- or is there different stories?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's between. It's always between, that's never changed.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So Nahtahn is dead, he watches American History rape and then he strangles or uses a belt on his other four children, is that the story?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Not exactly. He goes out and buys cigarettes at the convenience store.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So is the story always that Nahtahn is dead, he watches American History rape and then he goes out to buy cigarettes at the convenience store --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- and comes back?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. And kills the other four.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Then he kills the other four after coming back?
RICHARD FRIERSON: And the amount of time between Nahtahn's death and the other children's death varies between interviews.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But we know from a receipt what time he went to the convenient store?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's like 1:00 something in the morning.
SHAWN GRAHAM: 1:50 a.m.?
RICHARD FRIERSON: 1:50, he went to the convenience store. He says Merah went with him.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Why was it important for you to ask him about the American History rape scene?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, one would not think that this is something that someone would be downloading if they just killed somebody or killed their kid. And I wanted to know what was he thinking because what he was thinking reflects his mental state at the time of the defense. And he was thinking this is what's going to happen to me when I go to prison. And I think that's evidence that he understood the moral wrongfulness of Nahtahn's death.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In fact, you specifically asked him would the other inmates be morally outraged at him and he said yes?
SHAWN GRAHAM: So that's going to go in -- one of many things into whether he understood the legal and moral wrong of his actions that night, correct?
SHAWN GRAHAM: So his story to you is that as he's coming home from the convenience store, that's when this -- one of the two times he's saying audible voices in his life?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Is telling him to kill the kids?
RICHARD FRIERSON: In September, he described it as demonic voice and then in March, he described it as a, "Creepy, gremlin voice."
SHAWN GRAHAM: All right. In your September 24th, 2018, interview, he tells you what happens when he goes back to the trailer? What is he thinking?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He went back to the trailer and smoked. He reported that I knew I had schizophrenia. I was psychotic. It was better for me to take their lives. I cut off their windpipes, kissed them, took their life. I'm not a murderer, I'd rather know where they're at.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So let me stop you. He is telling you I knew I had schizophrenia and I was psychotic. It was better for me to take their lives. Did he explain to you why he thought it was better for him to take their lives? Not better for the children, but better for him? It was better for me to take their lives. Did he ever explain to you why he said that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You may be reading more into that than I meant.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Well, you've got it in quotes --
RICHARD FRIERSON: It would be better for him -- well --
SHAWN GRAHAM: It's a quote from him to you. You said --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I didn't ask him specifically, but I assumed he meant as a father of the children -- in my mind, it was better for me because Amber didn't want them. They would have to go to foster care. They would grow up without not only a mother, but a mom and a father. I don't want them to go through what I went through as a child.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay. That was what he explained to you in the many conversations, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But the quote that you wrote down --
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's what he said --
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- and I agree what wasn't, what the question, it says, It was better for me to take their lives?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He never said that it was better for him because he was going to be able to get away without the children. I mean, he didn't say that he killed them to prevent them from being witnesses against him.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Did you ever ask him that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, I don't think I did.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Then he says, I tried to kill myself with spice and I passed out?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: I woke up the next morning, paranoia kicked in. Then he says, What am I going to do now?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Then he thought it was a matter of time before he got arrested, I might as well take a trip to Vegas. I thought about ways to dispose of their bodies. I was scatterbrained. He said he wrapped each child in a blanket and put them in the car. He left August 29th, the next day, and started driving.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he tells you he starts ignoring phone calls and texts, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. He says, If I'm going to go down, I'm going down by myself.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So why did he tell you that he ignored phone calls and texts? Why did you ask him -- why did that come up?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because I knew that at some point, even in the days after that, people -- people are trying to contact him. I wanted to know why he didn't answer.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And his answer was that, If I'm going to go down, I'm going to go down by myself?
SHAWN GRAHAM: I didn't want to involve anybody else?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. And this is when he downloaded later, the next few days, that Stix song, Strong Arm of the Law or whatever. I think it's about somebody being on the run.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He also told you that he eventually took the battery out of his cell phone, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Is that so he couldn't be tracked? Did he tell you --
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's what he told you, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. That he was riding aimlessly. He just --
SHAWN GRAHAM: When he said aimlessly, are you aware that he started driving the next morning, made it all the way to the far side of Birmingham, Alabama, and then came back to the Lexington area. Are you aware of that?
SHAWN GRAHAM: That would be during the time when he was doing internet searches --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Or was the next day was the Dunkin' Donuts in Spartanburg day? I thought -- I may be getting my days confused. But he did -- drove towards -- past Atlanta one day. I know one day he drove all the way to Folly Beach. He was in Orangeburg. He was in Lake City. He was outside Camden. He was outside Spartanburg.
SHAWN GRAHAM: I'm going to hand you State's 77, which is a summary of the timeline of the phone extraction starting on the 28th and going down. If you look on the 29th, there's internet searches for Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi for drugs, isn't there? That would be on page -- bottom of Page 2.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Oh, yeah.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Starts there.
RICHARD FRIERSON: August 29th -- now, I'm -- I always got confused in the 20's, so remind me about what UTC minus four means because it has to do with the time.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Ignore that point and just go with --
RICHARD FRIERSON: It says 1:17, and I guess that's a.m.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Well, there's a p.m. on the next line.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Oh, I'm sorry, 1:17, he searched for herbal incense, illegal in Alabama. Then he tried to call the -- at 12:14 that afternoon, he tried to call Zam Zam Incense shop on Peachtree Street in Atlanta.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Well, Doctor, let me ask you a question, if he's driving -- and I think this time -- did he tell you whether he was -- during this first time period, did you get specific enough to ask him when he drove away whether he was on the interstate or back roads?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I know he ended up on back roads because he thought he'd be less visible. I didn't ask. I think I've read somewhere in something that he was on the interstate initially.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But your conversations with him were --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I didn't ask him personally, no.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay. Would his spice addiction -- if you have an opinion on this, with his addiction to spice, if he was driving and made it three states over and kept searching and it was illegal, illegal, illegal and he needed more spice, would his addiction have him come back to Lexington?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It could. I have no way of knowing what his motive was for coming back.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Did he give you any -- you've described his story that night. You've also interviewed him different times. Did his story ever change in any of your other interviews? You had a September 24th and a March 18th and 20th interview?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I'm not sure what you're asking, I'm sorry.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And I apologize for not wording it very well. The September 24th, 2018 interview, that's the first time you talked to him about what happened that night?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, I had never --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: During the competency eval in 2016, I don't ask him anything about what happened.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What you noted from your notes was what I brought out earlier, "It was better for me to take their lives". In your discussion from what he told you on September 24th of 2018, I don't see anything in your notes about him saying I don't want my children to go through what I've been. I don't see that until two interviews later.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, that was later.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So he didn't tell you that in that first interview?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Not in that first interview, no.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he didn't -- he didn't tell you until the March 18th interview of 2019?
RICHARD FRIERSON: At this point, I just need to look -- glance at my notes because I don't want to say the wrong thing.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
RICHARD FRIERSON: He did say, I thought what am I going to do with the other kids. This is after Nahtahn's death. The thought comes to my mind things aren't going well for them. If their mother had been there for them, I wouldn't have done what I did.
SHAWN GRAHAM: This is on September 24th?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, this is in September. He did tell me that. That's why I wanted to check my notes to make sure.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He blames Amber? If Amber would have been there, this wouldn't have happened?
SHAWN GRAHAM: It also -- so he said that he -- consistently, his story was that he choked the two older children?
RICHARD FRIERSON: With his hands, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: With his hands. And he told you, and you made a point of noting this, that Merah struggled, is that correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Merah struggled.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Why was that important?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because I think it shows determination on his part. And that a dose of -- you know, sometimes people might stop and say, what am I doing?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Now, he gave you a time for the time period that he choked Eli to death. How long did he tell you that it took to choke Eli to death? The top of Page 49.
RICHARD FRIERSON: He said it only took 45 seconds. But, you know, that's medically unlikely --
SHAWN GRAHAM: I'm -- what, I'm sorry?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Medically unlikely. It would take several minutes to strangle somebody, even a child.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You can lose conscious quickly, but to kill somebody, you have to keep pressure on for an extended time, minutes, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I mean, and you know, if he was using spice, his sense of time would -- I mean, the place he bought it was called Time Warp. So using synthetic marijuana distorts your sense of how long things are.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And also, the truth is, we have to take what he says with a grain of salt because he's the only one saying it and it's the only time he says it, true?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He was the only one there. But what he -- the reason that I give him the benefit of the doubt is because what he said doesn't make it look very good. He was very detail oriented with me on what happened with those kids and it was tough to listen to. But he didn't sugar coat -- sugar coat it. I mean, you could say the voices are sugar coating it to make it look better. I don't -- I have no way of knowing if that voice is real or not. I don't think a single voice like that qualifies someone for schizophrenia. I think the voice, if he did hear it, was likely due to his use of drugs. But he certainly was not giving a version of events that was very kind to him or to his defense.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In the March 18th and the March 20th interviews, you actually had that phone extraction and you asked him some follow-up questions, correct?
SHAWN GRAHAM: What questions did you ask him and what were his answers? What were you interested in?
RICHARD FRIERSON: What was he searching and why was he searching for it. I mean, it's sort of obvious when you look at what he was searching, but, for example, I asked him, why were you searching local dumpsites? And he said, that was an attempt to hide the corpses. He acknowledged that he had different thoughts about how to dispose of the bodies, such as cutting them or feeding them to hogs or cut them up and put them in a concrete machine, that he was running on fear. He, also, at some point had started searching for extradition laws and where to run if you're in trouble.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he told you that he wanted to know where he could run and hide?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, where he could run and hide does indicate that he knows he's in trouble and he's certainly aware of the legal wrongfulness.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Right. Let's move to your opinion as to criminal responsibility, as to insanity, as to whether as a result of mental disease or defect Tim Jones lacked the capacity to distinguish moral and legal right from moral and legal wrong or to recognize the act as morally or legally wrong. What's your opinion, Doctor?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think he was capable of distinguishing moral and legal right from moral and legal wrong and to recognize his particular acts as morally and legally wrong.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that opinion doesn't change whether he's schizophrenic, that opinion still stays the same, doesn't it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: If he's schizo-effective disorder with bipolar type, it wouldn't change that opinion?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, it would not. If I'm wrong about the diagnosis and he has one of those, he still, in my opinion --
SHAWN GRAHAM: That doesn't make the difference?
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- clearly had the ability to distinguish right from wrong.
SHAWN GRAHAM: One prong of the insanity -- to start talking about it is a mental disease, that's why we're talking about --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- diagnoses, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But the truth is, we're really looking to see whether he understood legal wrong, moral wrong or not?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So let's talk about some examples of legal and moral right and wrong based on his words and on his actions. That's what we look for, right?
SHAWN GRAHAM: He didn't call 911 --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes, he --
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- after Nahtahn -- according to his story, Nahtahn accidentally dies?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah. A normal -- you're exercising your kid, something happens. Let's say the kid has a brain aneurysm or some underlying medical issue and just collapses, the normal thing to do is call 911. But he was afraid that he would be accused of murder.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Does the quote you have --
RICHARD FRIERSON: That what he -- "I was afraid I was just going to get myself locked up."
SHAWN GRAHAM: So does that show legal or moral right or wrong or knowledge of legal or moral right or wrong?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Legal.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Legal.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Locked up, legal.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Locked up. All right.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Then he misled his actions to other people. He was hiding what had happened.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Let's talk about how he misled other people. The first one you note is Christina Ehlke. That's the babysitter for the children, correct?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And he misled her how?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He didn't tell her the children were dead. He told her they'd be back at her house for babysitting on Tuesday.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Right. But at first, he told her -- because she asked when the children are coming over and he said Tuesday. He actually said that.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then there was a telephone conversation and he said he and the kids were moving?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Moving to Mississippi, or moving out of town.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So his texts and statements and conversations with Christina Ehlke, is that legal or moral or both?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's a little bit of both.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Why do you say that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because she could call the police and turn him in legally. And then morally, she cared for the children and she would be outraged or find it very upsetting what he had done. Think it was morally wrong.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So you think that his dealings with Christina Ehlke shows that he was sane?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes -- or shows that he knew right from wrong.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Shows that he knew right from wrong. He also had dealings with his father, Tim, Sr., correct?
SHAWN GRAHAM: He told his father that -- either texted or talked to him and told him that his plans had changed and he wouldn't be able to come?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. So he hid the fact of what he had done from his father.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And is that legal or moral or both again?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think it's a little of both.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Did he ever tell you why he didn't call his father? Why he didn't call him and say I need you to take the other four kids?
SHAWN GRAHAM: He also misled his grandmother, Roberta, isn't that true?
SHAWN GRAHAM: He, basically, avoided all of her calls and all of her texts?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that again shows legal or moral or both?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Both.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You asked him about internet searches on September 1st of 2014, where he searched for South Carolina dumps and looking at websites related to landfills and camping venues?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah. And he searched for -- he typed in dog search for body in landfill, which indicates he was interested in whether a cadaver dog would find a body if it was placed in the stench of a landfill.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So he was trying to destroy evidence?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. He got bleach and tried to remove evidence from his car. Disposal of evidence is, in my opinion, a clear indication that someone knew what they did was wrong, tried to hide it.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Legal or moral?
RICHARD FRIERSON: When it comes to evidence, I would say legal.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He did an internet search -- in fact, I want to say his last search was missing children, Tim Jones on September 4th. That was his last Google search. What does that say to you or does it say anything to you about legal or moral?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It just says he wanted to know if he had made the news, if he and his children being missing had been covered by news media.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That would be consistent with his fear --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Getting caught.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- getting caught? Mental illness by itself does not equate to insanity, does it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, it has to impair your ability to distinguish right from wrong, legally and morally.
SHAWN GRAHAM: The things we're talking about right now?
SHAWN GRAHAM: In addition to the searches for camping and landfills and dog searches for body in landfills and missing children, Tim Jones, he also looked about extradition laws and where to run?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You face a U.S. legal problem, where should you run.
SHAWN GRAHAM: What does that tell you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He knew he was in trouble, or going to be if he didn't get away, out of the country where he could -- and in his car, there were note scribblings about what to do with the body -- bodies. And at one point, it had the initials MB. It was at the end, it said MB. And I said -- in my initial interviews with him, I said, what did that mean? MB, I was thinking Myrtle Beach. You know, I don't know. There it is, up at the top right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That's State's 79. So he --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Lexington, camping, Mexican border. Because the thought was he'd go camping and just dispose of the bodies.
SHAWN GRAHAM: When we follow the line and we're over here to LV. It was Las Vegas?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. But, anyway, MB, he didn't know what that meant. When I first saw him in the fall of 2018 interviews, he couldn't remember. And then he spontaneously told me without my asking during the March interview, he says, Oh, by the way, that means Mexican border. He had remembered between my interviews that that meant Mexican border. And, once again, that's a sort of -- what's the word I'm looking for? I think I've been here too long. It doesn't make him look good. Why would he volunteer that to me if he was trying to make himself look good? That's why I was sort of reluctant to diagnose malingering.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You noted in your report that there was a passport in the car as well?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct. Which also shows some ability to organize, plan, what am I going to do as to what he put into the car. Things that meant a lot to him, his diploma, I believe, his free mason materials, things that had sentimental value. He was able to, rationally able to think about what to take with him.
SHAWN GRAHAM: In addition to his plan of travel that he laid out for you, there's also some other things on here. Day one, burn up bodies; day two, sand down bones; day three, MB, smiley face, dissolve and discard. Do you know whether that MB is Mexican border?
RICHARD FRIERSON: It's my understanding MB meant Mexican border, period.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So the fact that he is -- has a plan to burn up bodies, sand down bones and go to the Mexican border, dissolve and discard, does that sound legal, moral or both?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Mor -- I mean, legal.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Legal.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Get out of the country, take the evidence with me.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Up at the top, head to campground, melt bodies, sand bones to dust or small pieces, something, I think sanitation plant. I'll let everybody read it and get what they get out of it. The fact that he's talking --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Discard by sanitation plant is how I read that.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Thank you, Doctor. That, also, then would be legal?
SHAWN GRAHAM: When we move down here below, though, it says loose ends. You see that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. What he needed to do before he got out of town.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And it's got names. Do you know who those people are?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Christine would be Christine Ehlke.
SHAWN GRAHAM: The babysitter?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Jim Mc is, I believe, his boss at the time at Intel. SG, I think that's Saxe Gotha Elementary; the pediatrician; Amber. I don't know that top one. I can't read that from here.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Amber, grandma and dad --
RICHARD FRIERSON: At the very top.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Oh, up there.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Is that Ter -- I don't know what that is.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So loose ends, things he has to deal with. People --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Before he leaves and then bills he needs to pay.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So does that have any bearing on legal or moral right or wrong? Or does that just show organized behavior and --
RICHARD FRIERSON: To me, it shows that he was planning and thinking what he needed to do.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Same with middle column, bills?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay. How about over here on the far right, tattoos, glasses, I'm not sure what that -- did you ever discuss that other word, the third word?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't recall discussing this specifically with him. The glasses I know refer to, though, his damaged glasses that he said Nahtahn stomped on.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Could it have been for disguises?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think hunting gear is at the bottom.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Could it have been for disguises, way to avoid, or do you think that's him taking care of loose ends?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I didn't ask and I don't want to venture there because I think I'd be speculating and I don't want to do that.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Okay. He also went to Wal-Mart. And you questioned him about that --
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- Wal-Mart purchase, correct?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. He was buying stuff to try and dismember, destroy the bodies.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That would be the jab saws, the goggles, the dust mask, the five-gallon bucket and the muriatic acid?
SHAWN GRAHAM: So the fact that he went to Wal-Mart, pulled those items off the shelf and bought them for the purpose of dismembering and destroying his children's bodies, all five of them, legal or moral or both?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Legal.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then there's actually -- you're aware there's physical evidence that he actually -- that Nahtahn has marks that are consistent with --
RICHARD FRIERSON: He tried with the saw on Nahtahn's leg, but couldn't bring himself to do it.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And that would go to legal?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Taking the battery out of the phone, is that legal and moral or both? Because he didn't want to involve his family? He didn't want to involve anybody else because he wanted to go down by himself, right?
SHAWN GRAHAM: And, also, he didn't want to be tracked by --
RICHARD FRIERSON: There was a cousin or something that had texted him offering assistance.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Yes.
RICHARD FRIERSON: And he didn't respond to that cousin.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Because he didn't want to drag anybody else into his problems?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I didn't ask him specifically why didn't you, but.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You also have down in here, which on Page 50, number six, he stated to Lexington County investigators and Mississippi, "the voices in my head told me nobody will ever believe that you didn't murder him. Now you need to kill the rest of the children and get out of town." That statement by itself, if taken for true, legal or moral or both?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Legal. And that's very atypical. That's what I'm saying, I think these are his anxious thoughts. These are not auditory hallucinations because psychotic auditory hallucinations do not give three-step commands.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Well, would you agree with me that his statement, Nobody will ever believe that you didn't murder him, that's talking about Nahtahn, that can be moral, no one? Society?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Okay. Well --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Because --
RICHARD FRIERSON: I think you're getting to hair splitting, but it could. I think the moral wrongfulness, to me, comes from the protecting family members, comes from downloading that rape scene, realizing that other inmates would find what he did morally wrong. And as I was preparing for my testimony, I relistened to his confessions or his statements to police. And in the back of the police car after the bodies are found, he says -- he cries out, God, forgive me. Asking God for forgiveness, to me, is really direct evidence that he realized the moral wrongfulness. And then he made another statement that I don't deserve or -- to go to the children's burials. That, also, to me, indicates that he really realized the moral wrongfulness of what he had done.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And you heard that on the --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Out of his own mouth, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- taped interview on September 9th when he's riding back with law enforcement after he's shown them where the bodies are?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He also -- your point seven, a lot of lives belong about the children, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: One other thing I forgot to say. He also says on that tape that he feels ashamed of what he's done.
SHAWN GRAHAM: On that 9th tape, the September 9th tape?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, at 44 minutes and 50 seconds, he says he feels ashamed of what he's done. And feeling the sense of shame indicates knowledge of moral wrongfulness.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He lied to the police. When he first got stopped, he was asked why the car smelled so bad and he said garbage. That wouldn't be true, it was from decomposition.
RICHARD FRIERSON: And he said he didn't have any children.
SHAWN GRAHAM: He said he had --
RICHARD FRIERSON: Then at some point, he had three children and they're back in Columbia with their mother or a baby -- someone.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Then the next day, he told another group of law enforcement, I think when his father was there, I put them out of the car at Wal-Mart?
RICHARD FRIERSON: And he admitted to making that up, that the kids never said they wanted to feed him to the dogs.
SHAWN GRAHAM: All those would be legal wrongfulness, right?
SHAWN GRAHAM: He then is confronted by the FBI agent and Detective Creech with the sheriff's department about the purpose of the saws and he says they were for tree limbs. So he gives not the truth about why he was trying to destroy evidence?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
SHAWN GRAHAM: That would be legal?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Legal wrong.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And then we've already talked about the American History rape scene, which you said is moral wrongfulness?
SHAWN GRAHAM: To all five children?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. I mean, if you know it's morally wrong to kill one --
SHAWN GRAHAM: At that moment?
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- and you don't have delusions that would impair moral wrongfulness about the other four.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So those are all of your justifications from either his actions or his words to say that he is not insane?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct. That's not all of them. I mean, but it's a good representation of the majority of them, yes.
SHAWN GRAHAM: The more we look through, probably, the more we could find?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You can always find other things that suggest that.
SHAWN GRAHAM: All right. So that's criminal responsibility, right?
SHAWN GRAHAM: You were also asked to look at capacity to conform?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Which is also known as guilty but mentally ill, right?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Explain to the jury what that is and what your findings were on that.
RICHARD FRIERSON: In order to find someone guilty but mentally ill, the Court or the trier of fact has to find that the person lacked the ability, sufficient ability to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. In other words, he couldn't resist doing what he did. He was compelled by his mental illness. But in his --
SHAWN GRAHAM: Can you give an example of what that is? You know it's wrong, but you can't stop yourself?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. Let's say that -- let me give you the earlier example about the neighbor who you think is trying to kill you by poisoning you through your air conditioning vents. You could kill that neighbor -- you could call the police and say look, my neighbor is trying to kill me. The police come, they investigate. They go, no, we find no evidence of that. And then you call again. About the third time you call them, they say we think you need a mental evaluation, they're going to have you checked out. You get checked out, put in the hospital. Come out, you still think the neighbor is doing it. You say -- think to yourself oh, if I call the police, they think I'm crazy, so you kill the neighbor. But then you dispose of the body, you hide what you did, you wore gloves, you lie to the police, I don't know what happened to the neighbor. You clearly understood it was wrong to kill the neighbor, but you were maybe compelled by your delusion that if I don't kill him, he's going to get me at some point.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry is that he did have the capacity to conform?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. He reflected and thought about what he did and made a decision to do it. It wasn't something impulsive. I mean, he says Nahtahn was an accident. But I don't think that he has a mental illness that prevented him from realizing that he was potentially disciplining Nahtahn too harshly. This fits a pattern of excessive discipline that had been reported by ministers, former pastor, babysitters and the DSS investigations.
SHAWN GRAHAM: So when he says that he doesn't want the children to suffer -- talking about the other four, he doesn't want the children to suffer like him over the loss of his mother, why is that not a delusion that gets him to guilty but mentally ill?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because delusions don't start suddenly. That's just him morally justifying what he did. There's a difference between being morally justified and not knowing moral wrongfulness.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And, again, we're going off of his story --
RICHARD FRIERSON: By his statement.
SHAWN GRAHAM: -- what he tells you?
SHAWN GRAHAM: So he's telling you in your opinion that he's -- feels inside himself morally justified for doing it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Because Amber didn't want them.
SHAWN GRAHAM: But at the end of the day, he made a choice, didn't he?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yes. For the four.
SHAWN GRAHAM: And your 3500 competency, criminal responsibility, capacity to conform, you don't always find people not insane and guilty but mentally ill, do you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: You mean not guilty but mentally --
SHAWN GRAHAM: I mean, not guilty but mentally ill?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. I mean, I've opined quite the opposite. I had not too long a case ago where a woman killed her two young children, school-age children, elementary school in Greenville and I opined that she was not guilty by reason of insanity and didn't appreciate or recognize the legal or moral wrongfulness of what she had done. And there have been other murder of adults where I've opined the person lacked the ability to distinguish legal and moral right from legal and moral wrong.
SHAWN GRAHAM: You looked at all the evidence you could get to you, didn't you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I did the best that I could, yes. I looked at a lot of evidence. I did -- there was like -- for example, I would get a video of him parking his car in the Dunkin Donuts by the dumpster and I couldn't get it to play. But I was told by -- I think your office provided that video of what it shows. I didn't think it was crucial that I see that piece, but other than that, I think I've tried to review everything that was given to me.
SHAWN GRAHAM: Thank you, Dr. Frierson.
BOYD YOUNG: Briefly, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. YOUNG:
BOYD YOUNG: You talked about the competency evaluation that you did back in 2016. Do you recall whether or not the Defense cooperated with you in that competency evaluation?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Mr. Jones --
BOYD YOUNG: Yeah, the Defense --
RICHARD FRIERSON: -- or you.
BOYD YOUNG: Me.
BOYD YOUNG: Did I?
BOYD YOUNG: Did I say we think he's not competent or --
RICHARD FRIERSON: No, you were saying it was not your issue.
BOYD YOUNG: We had no concerns about it?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right. You said we want this evaluation. You had no doubt that he was competent.
BOYD YOUNG: That was not an issue raised by the Defense?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Correct.
BOYD YOUNG: You talked about his anxious thoughts and you had reviewed his statements to law enforcement after he had recovered and we met with Detective Creech, right?
BOYD YOUNG: And in those statements, the voices that he was talking about referred to him -- he -- refers to him saying, You're F'd, Tim, right? They use his name, talking about himself in the third person, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, thinking about himself in the third person.
BOYD YOUNG: Right. And that's unusual, isn't it? Because, usually, you say what am I going to, not like what am I going to do, Boyd, or what am I going to do, Dr. Frierson?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Oh, the fact that he uses the word Tim rather than me.
BOYD YOUNG: Yeah.
RICHARD FRIERSON: That's a point that is well taken.
BOYD YOUNG: Tim has always been cooperative with you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He's been very cooperative.
BOYD YOUNG: He's always been engaged with you?
BOYD YOUNG: People -- when we talk about people faking stuff, people can also fake being better than they actually are?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't agree with that.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: What you mean by better, better in what way?
BOYD YOUNG: Well, they can mask symptoms, they could try and hide symptoms?
RICHARD FRIERSON: They could try to hide symptoms. They can be experiencing symptoms and they can deny them.
BOYD YOUNG: Right. You talked about Tim's mom. You know she's still alive, right?
BOYD YOUNG: Did you ever talk to her?
BOYD YOUNG: Did you ever review a video of her statement?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't recall seeing her on video. I recall reading through mounds of records of her hospitalizations.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: I mean, she's married to another man with schizophrenia. I knew that she had a baby and didn't realize she was even pregnant. She's very mentally ill. To me, that's not even an issue.
BOYD YOUNG: You talked about the glasses being stomped and smashed. If the glasses are still intact, they're still around, would that be a hallucination, would that be a delusion? What would that be if they were still in existence?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Well, it could be a lie. I don't think that would be -- that's not something that people -- delusions don't start suddenly like that, like I said.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay. It could be a hallucination?
RICHARD FRIERSON: But there was some -- also, he had called around this time the glass -- where he got his glasses.
BOYD YOUNG: For, like, a couple seconds?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, the number, dialed the number, which would make sense about wanting to get glasses.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Replace or whatever. And somewhere on one of those sheets, handwritten pages, it says glasses.
BOYD YOUNG: Okay, right. On the handwritten notes, it said glasses? Is that what you're talking about?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Uh-huh.
BOYD YOUNG: It said glasses right there?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Right.
BOYD YOUNG: The part about the American History X scene and the prison rape scene. Now, you work in the Department of Corrections?
BOYD YOUNG: And prisoners who are going to target people for hurting children don't really care if they say I didn't mean to. All they care about is you're in prison and you're charged with a crime against children, right?
RICHARD FRIERSON: Yeah, that's been my experience.
BOYD YOUNG: Did you ask Tim why he put the children in the car and drove around with them for nine days?
BOYD YOUNG: And what did he tell you?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He was trying to figure out what to do.
BOYD YOUNG: He didn't tell you that he was trying to spend time with them?
RICHARD FRIERSON: He did say that as well, that he was grieving their loss.
BOYD YOUNG: He said he knew that he was going to get caught, right?
BOYD YOUNG: So if he's got his passport, he's got the check for $3500.00 dollars, how many times did he drive past the Atlanta airport?
RICHARD FRIERSON: I don't know, I mean, two times the first day, then he went back in that direction.
BOYD YOUNG: He didn't do any of that? He didn't fly to --
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. He was still thinking, I think, before he dumped the bodies that he was going to dispose of them before he left for Mexico and he couldn't find an adequate place to do that.
BOYD YOUNG: And all of this stuff that he has written down, melt the bodies, burn the bodies, sand the bodies, take them to a dump, take them to a sanitation plant, he never did any of that?
RICHARD FRIERSON: No. I don't know that that would have been feasible if he tried. I mean, people underestimate the strength of even a corpse, the ligaments. I mean, having done gross anatomy in medical school, it's hard to dissect a body.
BOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, that's all the questions I have. Thank you, Dr. Frierson.
THE COURT: Anything else?
SHAWN GRAHAM: Thank you, Doctor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
RICHARD FRIERSON: Am I excused?
THE COURT: Yes, you are.
BOYD YOUNG: May we approach?
THE COURT: You may. (Whereupon, a bench conference was held in the presence of the jury but out of the hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: We're done for the day. We're out of witnesses for the day. So don't talk about the case and see you in the morning. (WHEREUPON, the jury is excused from open court for the day.)
THE COURT: Mr. Secor or Mr. Young.
BOYD YOUNG: One other thing, Your Honor, at this point in time, we think Dr. Frierson, through his testimony and through the case examples he has given and the numerous examples he gave about the patients who suffered from various mental illness has opened the door to Bethany Yeiser and we would ask the Court to reconsider and allow us to call her.
THE COURT: The lady from Cincinnati?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: No, sir. I don't agree with you on that one. I mean, respectfully, no, sir. I just -- her condition comparing it to someone else, that's just apples to oranges and not apples to apples. And I don't think that's fair to the Defendant. It confuses me to try to compare what she was saying related to Mr. Jones. I don't -- I understand why you're asking, but I think that would create a mountain of confusion for the jury trying to figure out what -- there were so many things that she said that were her personal experience that are not relevant at all to the issues here for Mr. Jones. So I'm not going to reconsider that. My decision stays the same about that. What else?
BOYD YOUNG: Note our objection.
THE COURT: Yes.
CASEY SECOR: Your Honor, I just wanted to address the issue about additional testimony about social history. Is that all right?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
CASEY SECOR: And nothing I say am I trying to insinuate that I think -- the Court has already ruled on this issue. I'm just going to sort of raise it from the perspective of what my understanding is on the Court's past ruling on the admissibility of it.
THE COURT: Okay.
CASEY SECOR: Defense had intended in the first phase to call our expert, Deborah Grey to testify to the entirety of Tim's social and family history. And I won't belabor the point, I believe Your Honor knows why we believe that that's relevant. And I believe that the Court's ruling is that it's not relevant prior to Tim's birth.
THE COURT: That's been my ruling. Factually, I think that's the relevant portion and that's been an easy rule to apply. Everything before that -- you know, that didn't limit any expert that did any evaluation, considering anything prior to the birth.
CASEY SECOR: Right, yes sir, I understand. But we were intending to call Deborah Grey to testify to the social history and in order to testify to the social history, it would have to be the entirety of the social history. Because a social history that begins on the day of somebody's birth is not a social history, it's not a family history. A social history and family history is by definition a reference to past events and past patterns to help illuminate future events and patterns. So I believe that the most efficient way to have it in the record is to submit the actual social history as a Court's Exhibit because I don't believe that Your Honor would allow the testimony in front of the jury and a proffer could be extremely lengthy. And it just seems it might make more sense to offer the social history as a Court's Exhibit.
THE COURT: I don't think the State would have an objection to that being proffered. Her testimony is consistent with that social history?
CASEY SECOR: Yes, sir.
RICK HUBBARD: No objection.
THE COURT: I think that's a very plausible suggestion to make that a Court's Exhibit.
RICK HUBBARD: No objection. Do you have an extra copy?
CASEY SECOR: I do.
RICK HUBBARD: What I'll do is keep this separate so I'll know that --
CASEY SECOR: May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes. That will be a Court's Exhibit. I think we're at 97 or 98.
COURT REPORTER: We're at 99. (WHEREUPON, Court's Exhibit number 98 and 99 was marked for identification.)
CASEY SECOR: Your Honor, just so I'm clear, the Court's ruling about her testimony is consistent with the Court's previous rulings on the admissibility of social history?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
CASEY SECOR: Thank you. And I just ask that you note our objection to that.
THE COURT: Got it.
CASEY SECOR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Is that it?
CASEY SECOR: Yes, sir. (Whereupon, the trial will resume the next morning at 9:00 a.m.)