Pathological Lying in Border-Line Mental Types : Part 1

Pathology of Lying, Accusation, And Swindling: A Study in Forensic Psychology
by William Healy, A.B., M.D., Mary Tenney Healy, B.L.

(Page 5 of 13)

We could load our pages with histories of cases where the statement of delusions, unrecognized as such, has created much trouble in courts and out, but this type of case is too well known to need any illustration. Text books of psychiatry deal with the falsifications of paranoia and other insanities. That the really insane also sometimes lie pathologically, that is, tell for no normal purpose what they adequately know to be untrue, is a fact not so well understood. But even that we need not be especially concerned with in our case histories. It has been well brought out in the previous literature on pathological lying, as witness in our Chapter II. In the present chapter we do not include the out-and-out insane, nor the definitively feeble-minded, nor the recognizably epileptic.

Much more difficult of understanding and much less easily recognized because of the mildness of many of the symptoms, or their variations from time to time, are the types which we enumerate. Several of these offer no complete picture of insanity - even Case 25, although clearly aberrational, extremely defective in self-control, and markedly criminalistic, did not show to some psychiatrists who observed him a sufficiently clear correspondence to any form of insanity as laid down in the old-school text-books to be practically regarded as insane and in need of long segregation. In considering this whole matter we must never forget that there is no wall of demarcation between those whose conduct clearly betokens insanity and those who are not insane. There are plenty of instances where the easily passable border between the two is permanently occupied or is at times approached.

We keep our border-line cases separate in order to emphasize that pathological lying by an insane person does not make a pathological liar in the true sense. We should hesitate, however, to give in legal form a verdict of insanity in several of these border-line cases we cite - they are very difficult to classify, and the question of responsibility called for sometimes in court work is unanswerable. Keeping even these mild cases away from our others serves, however, to lessen confusion; we need in this subject to conserve all the clearness possible by holding to fundamental classifications and showing up vagueness of definition where it does exist.

Perhaps we are over-particular in keeping such a case as No. 22 in this chapter. The commonsense observer would hardly regard this girl as at all lacking, even in self-control. On the other hand, for the purpose of illustrating the subject of pathological accusation we have kept Case 17 in the previous chapter when it clearly shows great resemblance to Case 26 and is in reality a border-line type. Then, too, the swindler, Case 12, in some respects belongs in this chapter.

We are hardly called on in this work to discuss the lying of drug habitues, although they so frequently in their mental conditions represent border-line types. They are often on the verge of a psychosis as the result of their intoxications. Their lying is mostly done for a purpose, to be sure, and hence much would not come under the head of pathological lying, but occasionally veracity is so much interfered with that there seems to be a tendency to aimless lying. This class of cases, however, is sufficiently discussed in special literature pertaining to the subject.

Case 22

Summary: A girl of 14, a most vigorous and vivacious personality, had for a couple of years pursued a curiously active career of misrepresentation, of obtaining goods under false pretenses and running away from home even to distant places. Her conversational ability was above normal; her lies were evolved for the purpose of adapting herself to the peculiar circumstances in which she frequently found herself. Her general conduct combined with her abnormal psychomotor activity gave ground for the diagnosis of constitutional excitement - hypomania.

Birdie M., 14 years old, we saw after some clever detective work had proved her to be the girl who in another town had repeatedly swindled shop-keepers. It seems she had been accustomed to take the train for localities where she had no connections whatever, and there enter shops and make away with whatever she could. An astounding incident was when she returned some goods she had stolen and persuaded the manager to "refund" her the money on the same. This was regarded by the authorities as extremely clever.

We found Birdie very small for her age. Weight 76 lbs.; height 4 ft. 8 in. Tonsils very large. Teeth excessively crowded. No sensory defect. Not yet menstruated. A very nervous type; quick physical and mental reactions; exceedingly active, restless manner.

Our psychological impressions state that Birdie did all her tests brilliantly and quickly, but very often with less accuracy than would have been the case had she taken the time to think quietly rather than work rapidly. She was very keen to make the best possible record. "I am proud of being quick; nothing is hard for me; it was not hard at school." It was found by steadying her that she gave a more accurate performance. We diagnosed her ability as good, but her school advantages had been poor. Otherwise we noted she was a pert, talkative, responsive child, of a distinctly nervous and somewhat unreliable type. Her ideas came tumbling, one on top of another. Under close supervision she was able to control her mental processes fairly well. For instance, on the antonym test, where opposites to twenty stimulus words are called for, Birdie gave them in the remarkably rapid average time of .8 of a second, with only one failure and one error. This is an exceptional record. From this and her unexpected powers of self-control exhibited on some other tests we were obliged to conclude that her aberrational tendencies were not very deep-set. Her mental traits seemed to conform most nearly to the type designated as constitutional excitement, or hypomania. Further observation of the case confirmed us in this first view of it.

On the "Aussage" or Testimony Test she gave 13 items, all correct, upon free recital. On questioning, 14 more details were added, but 6 of these were incorrect. Of the 6 suggestions offered she accepted none.