HBIC asked this question on 3/17/2000:

Forgive me, but I have to correct you on you statement that He was "clearly dilusional". The fact about his case is that he lied and has since admitted it, about the neighbors dog telling him to do this. It was all a part of his psychological game. A psychopath, as you may know, can fool even the best pyschologists into thinking they are insane. He is a prime example of this. They are expert manipulators. But, he was found guilty, his insanity defense was rejected. He was sentenced to life in prison for his crimes, if he was clearly dilusional he would have fit the legal guidelines for legally insane, and he did not. I researched many serial killers for my senior thesis, and discovered that many serial killers who are commonly believed to insane are not. No multiple personalities, no dilusions, no compulsions, no nothing.

jellygator gave this response on 3/18/2000:

I am aware that he later recanted, but my opinion was that this was a legal strategy more than truth. (You probably have more info on this one than I do.) It's possible. The legal definination of insanity is a slippery one. Even if a person has hallucinations and delusions, prosecutors can claim that they were not under the experiencing any such traits AT the moment of the crime, and can find plenty of experts who will contradict the defense experts' testimony.

In fact, very few cases are found to be committed, as you mention, by "insane" people. On the other hand, I worked in a prison after being a drug & alcohol counselor. I know that some of them (and not just killers but rapists and other violent criminals) have psychotic episodes and will deny it due to embarassment or fear of reprisals.

Thank you for your response.

The average rating for this answer is 2.

HBIC rated this answer a 2.