Worth More Dead

out the large Marine Corps tattoo on his upper left arm.
    He tended to think that Roland Pitre was malingering and that his performance was “exceedingly amateurish” and thoroughly unconvincing. Despite the prisoner’s refusal to let him access his earlier psychiatric records, there was plenty of information on him on file in the corrections system of the State of Washington.
    The psychologist knew the basics of Roland’s family history. There was no evidence of psychiatric disorder in any of his family members. Roland had always tested above average in IQ tests, and he had a stellar service record. He was a model inmate on McNeil Island. He’d done very well in college courses, both in prison and after he was paroled.
    But now Roland Pitre was acting psychotic. He seemed to know he was in Bremerton but thought the county was either “King” or “Kansas City.” He couldn’t—or wouldn’t—remember even three objects shown to him and couldn’t count backward by seven, yet in other intelligence tests Gagliardi gave him, Pitre scored slightly above average.
    On one test, Pitre scored in the bottom 0.007 percentile of the relevant adult population.
    “If the present mental status examination findings and test results were to be believed,” Dr. Gagliardi wrote, “it would indicate that Mr. Pitre is not only suffering from multiple personality disorder, but also that the alter personality, ‘Wade’ Pitre, is moderately mentally retarded or moderately demented.”
    But Gagliardi didn’t believe him for a minute. He’d talked to Pitre’s family and to Beth Bixler, and he believed the patient was faking. He mixed up his symptoms in ways that warred with what—or who—he was attempting to portray.
    The psychologist even doubted that Pitre had suffered a stroke that allegedly made him 100 percent disabled. There were no indications of it. He felt he was looking at a Class A imposter.
    One of the mental evaluations of Roland Pitre was available to Dr. Gagliardi. He read about the 1980 case and mentioned it in his 1993 report. “While undergoing a forensic mental evaluation pursuant to charges of Second Degree Murder, Mr. Pitre malingered symptoms of psychosis.”
    Dr. Gagliardi made the following DSM-III-R (the “bible” used by psychologists and psychiatrists) diagnoses:
    AXIS 1: 1) Malingering V65.20; 2) Alleged Adul Antisocial Behavior V71.01
    AXIS II Antisocial Personality Disorder, by history
    AXIS III Alleged Stroke resulting in 100% disability, March, 1991 (unconfirmed)
    These terms are meaningful to professionals in mental health. According to this summary, Roland Pitre was much like any number of felons who make headlines.
    Next, Dr. Gagliardi wrote a narrative that would hopefully help the Court decide what Roland Pitre’s sentence should be for the crimes where he had chosen to take the Alford Plea—which stipulated that he denied guilt, but believed he would be found guilty in a trial. Roland had every reason to hope that he would get a short sentence. Hadn’t he, after all, walked out of prison in only six years after his first conviction of murder? Surely, the simple theft of a safe and what he insisted was nothing more than a little scheme gone wrong wouldn’t bring him even that much prison time.
    Dr. Gagliardi was not of the same mind.
    Forensic Psychological Opinions:
    As the foregoing evaluation shows, Mr. Pitre is not suffering from a major mental disease or defect. Consequently, by statutory definition, he is competent to stand trial. Moreover, the available information suggests that at the time of the alleged burglary and the attempted kidnapping, Mr. Pitre was not suffering from symptoms of a mental disease or defect. The factual basis for my opinion is not only a clinical assessment of Mr. Pitre, but also the statements of witnesses (particularly Mrs. Beth Bixler) who knew the defendant well over a period of the alleged offenses. Since Mr. Pitre is not suffering from a major mental disease or defect, he would not qualify for an insanity defense.
    By state law, I am obliged to render an opinion regarding the defendant’s future dangerousness. If the information presented in the voluminous police discovery materials is, in fact, true, there can be little doubt that Mr. Pitre represents a particularly high risk of engaging in future felonious acts, jeopardizing public safety and security. If it is ultimately shown that Mr. Pitre did kill his first wife Cheryl, this, taken