TRAUMATIC AMNESIA-A CASE OF MEDICO-LEGAL

INTEREST.*

By W. W. RICHARDSON, M. D., NORRISTOWN, Pa.

The case of Frank Endrukat, who was tried for murder in the Philadelphia courts in December, 1907, is believed to be unique from a medico-legal standpoint, and is for that reason reported to this Association.

The following is the patient's story as he tells it at the present time. It is practically the same as told many times previously to others.

Frank Endrukat was born in Germany of healthy parents. He knows of no mental nor nervous taint in his ancestors. He is the seventh child of a family of seven, none of whom showed abnormalities or nervous disease. When he was two years old the family moved to Russia, where he was reared.

Endrukat and the girl, Martha Corias, whom he murdered, were school-mates in Russia and early became attached to each other. Upon reaching manhood he became a newspaper correspondent. He states that at times he and the girl traveled together, registering at the hotels as man and wife, but that at this period there was nothing improper in their relations.

When the girl was eighteen years old, they decided to marry, but the father of the girl repeatedly refused his consent on the ground of religious differences.

On the morning of May 16, 1905, he went to the girl's house to renew his suit. Before he saw the father, the girl avowed her intention to kill herself if the father refused his consent. The father did refuse and, when Endrukat returned to the girl with this news, she turned pale and he heard her say, "This is the murderer's moment." He thought from this remark that she was going to kill herself, and, as he was wearing his military pistol (being in the Russian Army at that time), he drew it and shot her twice. The father rushed in with a hatchet at the shots. Endru

*Read at the sixty-fourth annual meeting of the American MedicoPsychological Association, Cincinnati, May 12, 1908.

kat shot him, wrenched the hatchet from his hand, struck the girl several times over the head and then shot himself in the neck. (In corroboration of this part of the story it may be said that he carries a large scar at this point.)

The girl recovered, but the father died four days later. After lying in the hospital ten months, Endrukat was tried and sentenced to two and one-half years imprisonment. His sentence, however, was lightened by the Douma and, further, he was one of the prisoners freed to celebrate the birth of an heir to the Czar, so that he actually served only eleven days in prison.

Shortly after the girl recovered she sailed for America. He heard of this and in December, 1906, also came to the United States, though not, he claims, with any idea of finding the girl.

He landed at Baltimore, came to Philadelphia and learned, quite by chance and with surprise, that the girl was in the city, knew of his arrival and wished to see him. They met and became very intimate; in fact spent several nights together. One such night was spent in his room, and on this occasion he showed the girl a large sum of money ($800) which he had.

After she left, he found that his money was missing and later accused her of the theft. She gave him an evasive answer and, as he had heard that she intended to leave the city with his money and another man, he had her arrested on a charge of larceny. She retaliated by lodging a charge of rape against him, claiming that she had been detained against her will at his room and, through threats of death, had been dishonored. They later met in court, an exchange of money took place, each charge was withdrawn and they separated. This occurred on April 24, 1907, and Endrukat claims that he never saw the girl after that date.

He states that on the date of the murder, April 29, he rose abor** 9 a. m., breakfasted, remained about the house until 2 o'clock p. m., took the street car for the Pennsylvania Hospital to be treated for rheumatism, was admitted and put to bed. After he had been there three days he was restrained mechanically. Upon inquiring the reason for this he was told that he was insane. In addition, police officers were kept near him day and night. On May 28 (one month after the homicide) a woman acquaintance visited him, told him of the murder of Martha Corias; that he

had killed her and shot himself. This, he claims, was the first he knew of the death of the girl.

The actual facts in regard to the homicide, as developed at the trial are these:

At about half-past seven o'clock on the morning of the 29th of April Martha Corias was in a bakery, buying bread. As she started to leave, Endrukat entered and addressed her in German. She said, "let me go," and upon this he drew his revolver, shot her twice, then shot himself in the right temple.

The girl died almost immediately and he became unconscious at

once.

The testimony of the physicians as to his history while at the Pennsylvania Hospital is briefly as follows:

Patient was brought in, unconscious, at 8 a. m. A bullet wound was evident in the right temporal region. This wound was enlarged under ether about II a. m. and was found to penetrate the temporal bone just back of the orbit, the bone being depressed and somewhat comminuted at this point. Brain substance exuded from the opening in the skull. As moderate probing failed to locate the bullet, the wound was closed with gauze drain.

The patient regained consciousness about 8 p. m. (12 hours after the shooting) and was able to recognize a friend who called. Nothing coherent, however, could be learned from him at this time. In answer to a question as to the shooting of the girl he gave a somewhat confused reply to the effect that he had not killed her.

For about two weeks he lay in a semi-conscious condition with intervals of more complete consciousness. During this period he at times was critically ill. Soon, however, he began to gain; his wound healed rapidly and his only complaint three weeks after the injury was double vision.

About this time a skiagraph was taken, disclosing a bullet in the left temporal region. (Unfortunately, the plate has been lost and I could get no more definite information than this.)

He refused permission for an operation to remove the bullet, refusing to believe that the skiagraph shown to him was taken from his own head. His conduct while in the hospital revealed no abnormal features. His answers to questions, especially when

relating to the crime, were irrelevant or evasive, though not incoherent.

When told by the woman visitor, one month after the homicide, of what he had done, he denied all knowledge of the matter and volunteered that the police officers who were watching him were there because he was thought to be crazy.

After his refusal to have a further operation he was soon (June 7, 1907) sent to prison, being convalescent.

Endrukat remained in prison six months awaiting trial. During this period he was repeatedly questioned by his attorneys and by medical experts in an effort to make him admit some memory of his crime. To all he said emphatically that he did not kill Martha Corias; that he couldn't have killed her, as he was in another part of the city on the day of the murder, as he could prove by his friends. When questioned about the bullet wound in his temple he said he had had a cancer, which was cut out at the hospital. He laughed about the bullet in his brain and said that a man couldn't live with a bullet in his head.

His conduct while in prison is stated to have been natural in in most respects, though he manifested irritability at times, especially if other prisoners were noisy. The prison physician testified that there was nothing in his conduct or speech while in prison to make him think that the prisoner was of unsound mind.

At the opening of the trial (December 12, 1907) the court considered a petition from the defendant's attorneys asking that an inquiry be first made into the state of mind of the prisoner, it being averred that Endrukat had no recollection of his crime and for that reason could not comprehend the proceedings, could not properly confer with counsel nor make a rational and proper defense. However, the defendant, in answer to the court's questions, stated that he knew he was in a court-room and that he knew he was charged with killing Martha Corias. The court then overruled the petition of the defense, directed that a plea of "not guilty" be entered for the defendant, and the trial proceeded.

There was no contention in regard to the facts of the killing, as detailed above, which were proven by the commonwealth.

For the defense, several witnesses were first called who had been associated with the defendant at the hospital and prison, to

confirm the contention that the prisoner had never at any time admitted any knowledge of his deed. An attorney who had formerly been connected with the case testified that the prisoner had told him of having several thousand dollars at his disposal, which money was at the house of a friend. However, this friend could not be found at the address given.

The main reliance of the defense was upon expert testimony. The first expert called for the defense testified that in his opinion the defendant was suffering from traumatic amnesia, covering the period of the commission of the crime as a result of the gunshot wound. The following question was asked him by the counsel for the defense:

"Assuming that lunacy, as used in Section 67 of the Act of 1860 (Statutes of Pa.) is defined to be the inability of the prisoner to understand and comprehend sufficiently his position to be able to confer with counsel and prepare a defense; assuming that and assuming that the prisoner has traumatic amnesia, would you consider that that person is a lunatic within the meaning of the word as I have defined it in this question?"

The answer was: "In my opinion he would be." He further testified that, outside of his traumatic amnesia, he saw no evidence of mental abnormality in the defendant.

On cross-examination, he stated that the fact that the prisoner refused to accept the testimony of creditable witnesses that he had committed the crime served to differentiate this case from one of simple alcoholic amnesia and suggested more impairment of mind than mere traumatic amnesia. He felt that the defendant did not realize the gravity of the proceedings or comprehend fully the situation in which he was placed. He thought that, having no knowledge of his crime, the prisoner was not competent to conduct his defense.

The other alienist for the defense was also asked the hypothetical question embodying the definition of lunacy as given above and answered that he regarded the defendant as a lunatic" in that broad meaning." He thought the defendant comprehended his surroundings and the proceedings as far as a foreigner could and that he could reason properly about all matters save the crime itself, of which he remembered nothing. He also thought that