About once a month, I receive a panicky telephone call or email from a distraught parent who attempted to get an adult child with a mental disorder  involuntarily committed in Fairfax County, Virginia, where I live.

Forcing someone into a hospital for treatment is a desperate act that is traumatic for the person who is ill and their entire family. It should only be done when all other options have failed.

The parents who contact me were stymied by one of the special magistrates who ultimately decide if a person meets the legal criteria to be forced into a hospital. We have three such magistrates in our suburban Washington D.C. county and two of them, Mark H. Bodner and Jose E. Aunon,  are known state-wide for being reluctant to approve involuntary commitments.

“My son,” one caller told me, “has a long history of mental illness. He was living in our basement where he was hearing voices and talked about killing himself.”

Another parent said, “Our daughter was violent and her psychiatrist recommended that she be hospitalized.”

In both instances, the Fairfax special magistrates refused to authorize an involuntary commitment, the parents reported.

Parents are not the only ones who have grumbled about magistrates Bodner and Aunon. Several police officers and mental health professionals also have quietly raised concerns about the decisions of both magistrates to me.

So what does the law require when parents reach the point where they feel there is no alternative except an involuntary commitment?

In the December issue of Virginia Lawyer, attorney Molly A. Huffman, who practices at the firm of Hancock, Daniel, Johnson and Nagle, gives an excellent overview of the reforms that the Virginia legislature passed that were, among other things, supposed to loosen the commitment process.

There are two steps in the involuntary commitment process. The first is the issuing of an Emergency Custody Order [ECO] or a Temporary Detention Order [TDO]. Both are used to hold a person against their will so that they can be evaluated. The results of the evaluation is presented at an involuntary commitment hearing before a magistrate.

In her article, Huffman explains the differences between the old and the new criteria.

Before 2008, the standard required clear and convincing evidence that ‘the person presented an imminent danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness or had been proven to be so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself.’

The high ‘imminent danger’ standard was abandoned and the current law provides for a lower standard of  ”substantial likelihood’  that the person will cause serious harm to himself or others, or that he will suffer serious harm because of his lack of capacity to protect himself from harm or to provide for his basic human needs.

In addition to the change in commitment criteria from ‘imminent danger’ to ‘substantial likelihood,’  the language ‘unable to care for himself’ was changed to ‘suffer serious harm due to lack of capacity.’  

 Also, magistrates now ‘shall’  issue ECOs and TDOs if these criteria are met, rather than the previous ‘may’ issue language.

The changes were adopted to get rid of  ‘imminent danger’ — a criteria that first became popular in the 1960s and 1970s, but which had been abandoned by many progressive states by 2,000.

Fairfax Magistrate Bodner chaired a special task force in 2006 that was appointed by the late Leroy Rountree Hassell Sr., the former Chief Justice of the Virgina Supreme Court, to rewrite the commitment criteria. I served with Bodner on that task force and genuinely liked him, although we often disagreed. Several task force members were adamantly opposed to getting rid of  ‘imminent danger,’ but after the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus that left 33 dead on April 16th, 2007, even those members  realized that reforms were inevitable.

The task force was fortunate because one of our members was  John Monahan,  a psychologist who teaches law at the University of Virginia and is a nationally recognized expert on mental health laws. Richard J. Bonnie, a lawyer and UVA professor, oversaw the commission and also is nationally known for his expertise. Virginia’s new statute is considered so well- crafted that it now serves as a model for other states.

How is it possible then, with a new model law and the legislature’s clear intent to loosen the process, that parents in Fairfax County are still being frustrated by the special magistrates?  The answer is simple. A legislature and legal experts can craft the best law possible, but it is still up to independently-minded magistrates to interpret the law.

And Bodner and Aunon have continued to be more averse than their peers when it comes to approving involuntary commitments.

This month, Fairfax County Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith appointed Robert B. Walker, as a third magistrate. Whether he will be more in tune with magistrates in surrounding counties is still to be seen.

Here is what I tell parents who call me. I urge them to read the law and learn it well.  If possible, I also urge them to look for a way to get an involuntary commitment hearing in an adjoining county. Until Virginia finds a way to bring uniformity to its commitment system, that’s the best I can offer.

A few weeks ago, Florida Governor Rick Scott had never heard of death row inmate, David Gore.

But Scott has heard about little else from the outraged residents of Vero Beach since the publication of my new book, The Serial Killer Whisperer.  In it, Gore openly boasts about how he abducted, raped, tortured and murdered two women and four teenage girls in the 1980s in that scenic beach community.

On Friday, Gov. Scott put Gore on a fast track to be executed.  Clearly, he now knows the serial killer’s name.

Gore could be put to death as early as March 1st.

I certainly didn’t write my book to get Gore executed. But Gore’s letters, which are printed verbatim in the book, clearly set off an emotional firestorm.

“[I] had absolutely NO mercy. You said you read on the computer where it said one victim was fed to the alligators. That was true….” Gore bragged in one letter to his Las Vegas pen pal, Tony Ciaglia.

Gore has been sitting on Flordia’s death row for nearly thirty years. What few knew until my book was published was that Gore had been writing to Ciaglia for five years, openly chatting — and boasting — about the murders that he had committed.

Ciaglia, age 34, began writing to Gore and more than two dozen other infamous serial killers after he suffered a traumatic brain injury that left him lonely and, at times, under a self-imposed “house arrest.”

I tell his story in my book. At age fifteen, Ciaglia was struck in the head by a jet ski while attending a summer camp near Dallas, Texas. His heart stopped beating three times en route to the hospital. When he emerged from a coma, he was a different person. He had flashes of uncontrollable rage, didn’t recognize the consequences of his actions, was impulsive, was obsessive-compulsive and had difficulty speaking, walking, even eating.

Abandoned by his friends and soon despondent, Ciaglia struggled for years for some purpose in his life until he formed an unlikely kinship with serial killers. They lived in a physical prison, he explained. He lived in a “mental prison.”  Soon, he was calling the likes of Arthur Shawcross, ‘The Genesee River Killer’ who murdered twelve prostitutes in Rochester, New York, and Joe Roy Metheny, a self-described ‘Cannibal killer,’ his new “best friends.’”

As their friendship grew in letters, so did the depravity of the killers’ revelations – especially Gore’s.  In often pornographic prose, the killer described with glee how he had sexually abused his “catches.”

     “If I could inflect pain, I inflicted it to the max,” Gore declared, describing how he had scalped several victims to satisfy a hair fetish.  “I really didn’t want them to say a word..[while torturing his victims] It was like I had no emotions. I was just doing it. And you know where I got my biggest rush was really not the sex part, it was the capture. That was when I got a high…”

What makes the letters unusual is that the serial killers’ words went straight from their minds to paper, without pretenses, niceties or preening for prosecutors, psychiatrists or the public.

Killer Shawcross revealed that he enjoyed choking his victims and then reviving them, with CPR if necessary, so he could continue torturing them. Metheney urged Ciaglia to contact a “local mortician” to try necrophilia.

When two investigators for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children asked for Ciaglia’s help in locating the remains of  women thought to have been murdered by Alaskan Serial Killer Robert C. Hansen, who hunted women like big game, Ciaglia’s “hobby” took on a new objective. He set out to help police close cold cases.

Now Ciaglia’s correspondence with Gore has had an unintended consequence.

Gore has literally talked — or more accurately written — his way into Florida’s death chamber.

Here’s the chain of events that caused Gov. Scott to act last week.

My publicist sent a copy of my book to Russ Lemmon, a Vero Beach newspaper columnist, who had been crusading for Gore’s execution. He was so outraged by Gore’s letters that he published a front page story about my book under the headline: New Book on Serial Killers Includes Stomach Churning Letters From Gore.

Entirely by coincidence, Lemmon was scheduled to meet with Gov. Scott that same day and during their meeting, he brought up my book and Gore’s letters. [See video above]  The governor said he’d never heard about Gore. Lemmon told him that he needed to read my book. If the governor did, Lemmon said, then he’d understand why Vero Beach residents, especially the families of Gore’s victims, wanted him executed.

I happened to be in Vero Beach the day after Lemmon met with the governor. This was another unlikely coincidence. I was there to speak about mental health reforms. Lemmon contacted me and I met with the families of several victims, including Carl Elliott Jr. and Jeanne Elliott, whose daughter, Lynn, age 17, was murdered by Gore. The Elliotts told me that they were going to follow up on Lemmon’s conversations with Gov. Scott and also suggest that he read my book.

On Saturday morning, Carl told me that he received a letter from state officials informing him that Gore would have a clemency hearing on February 1st.

“I was shocked at first,” Elliott said. “I thought, ‘Clemency, are they going to let this killer loose?’”

But when Carl read the remainder of the letter, he realized that the clemency hearing was the final step that the state was required to take before Gov. Scott could sign a “death warrant.”

Gore exhausted his legal appeals more than a year ago. Under Florida law, a clemency panel must review his case and make a recommendation to the governor. He will either accept that recommendation or reject it. If Scott decides against granting clemency, which seems certain, then Gore could be executed in thirty days. Scott signed a death warrant last year in October and that inmate was executed a month later.

“Thank you so much for writing your book,” Elliott said. “It was those letters in the book that are finally going to make this happen.”

Lynn Elliott and a friend, age 14, decided to hitchhike in July 1983 from one popular Vero Beach to another. Gore picked them up, drove them to his parent’s house, and raped them. When he was momentarily distracted while sexually abusing her young friend, Lynn bolted naked from the house. A nude Gore chased her down and shot her to death in the front yard, dumping her body into a car trunk before returning to rape his other defenseless captive.  A boy riding by the house on his bicycle saw the shooting and told his mother who telephoned the police. Surrounded, Gore surrendered. Police found his other nude victim in the attic, terrorized but alive.

Why would a convicted serial killer on Florida’s death, who had exhausted his legal appeals, brag in letters about rapes, torture and murders – knowing his statement would outrage the public?

Gore, who has now put down his pen and is keeping silent, might have provided a clue when he wrote this passage to Ciaglia:

“…I don’t think a serial killer really has a choice. They may be able to suppress their desire and urges, but if genes play a part, how do you change your genes? Even people who know it’s wrong are powerless against it… I’ve never tried to hide from who I am. I’ve always known there was something inside of me that made me different…I’d be at a friend’s house sometimes and I’d be seeing his wife and I’d be thinking –Damn, I’d like to [rape and kill] her — and immediately after thinking that,  I’d say to myself – Why am I thinking this? – you see, I’d know it wasn’t right, but it was there lurking just beneath the surface, always on my mind…”

Simply put, he couldn’t help himself.

Have you ever thought what you would say to a murderer? What do you talk about knowing they have taken the life of someone else? Where do you even start?

For Tony Ciaglia, it was obvious: you talk about their crimes, their motivations, and their remorse (or lack of it) for the horrifying acts they’ve committed. After suffering a traumatic brain injury from a WaveRunner accident, Ciaglia found himself fascinated with serial killers and began writing to them.

The story of Ciaglia’s correspondence forms the crux of my dad’s newest book, The Serial Killer Whisperer, just recently released last week.

And now I’m excited to announce a new webpage all about the book where you can read an excerpt, reviews, and even pick up your own copy.

As the administrator of PeteEarley.com, I’ve watched Pete’s site evolve over the years and experience amazing growth thanks to his blog. But recently, the books section of this website has played second fiddle to the great posts Pete puts up each week.

So, for his newest true crime offering, I wanted to launch something special.

The result is SerialKillerWhisperer.net — a standalone site that introduces you to the story of the book, the characters in it, and offers you a chance to become engrossed in a 6,000 word excerpt before you decide to buy a copy.

The subject matter isn’t for everyone (as Pete has pointed out), but it’s a fascinating look at how some can walk the line on the edge of darkness while others can’t.

Visit The Serial Killer Whisperer by Pete Earley Website

The first was an incredible magazine story published by The Washington Post and written by Susan Baer. I once worked at the magazine and knew the subject of the cover story, although certainly not well. One of my former colleagues, Robert Melton, suffered a stroke that drastically reduced his cognitive abilities. He was married and his wife, Page, continued to love and take care of him even though he had become a stranger who had little understanding of their marriage.  Eventually, Page fell in love with another man. She divorced her husband to marry him.

What makes this story incredible is that Page and her new husband did not abandon Robert. Rather, they made him a part of their new family and even moved Robert with Page to St. Louis when she joined her new husband to begin their lives together.

The story, which was brilliantly told, was a courageous effort to describe one of the most difficult challenges that a person can face in their lives:  what do you do when someone you love suffers a debilitating brain injury. It is an especially poignant question for those of us who love someone with a severe mental disorder.

But many readers saw the article much differently. Writing in today’s Washington Post, columnist Robert McCartney revealed in his column that the story sparked a torrent of mean-spirited comments from readers, especially anonymous ones.

McCartney said Page decided to tell her family’s story because she wanted to make people aware of brain injuries and the problems that their survivors and caregives face. Her reward for speaking out was a slew of “outrageous personal insults.”

Writers didn’t stop at condemning [Page] for divorcing her first husband, an act that they said violated her marriage vows. They went on — and on– in one sanctimonious posting after another, to paint her as a selfish, promiscuous publicity hound.

“‘Talk about immoral and sleazy. This woman covers all the bases,’ one poster said.

“‘Nothing like a disability get in the way of your dating’  said another.

Or how about my personal favorite: ‘This woman has absolutely  no right to any happiness whatsoever.’”

In his column’s final paragraph, McCartney writes, “As for the mean-spirited critics, do society a favor: Contribute something useful, or at least have the guts to sign your name. Right now, you’re just fouling a common watering hole.”

If you have time, read the story. It’s worth it.

The second event that caught my eye was the candle light vigil held on the one year anniversary of the Tucson shootings and the public appearance of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. She triumphantly lead the Pledge of Allegiance at the memorial service.

All of us recall that on January 8th, 2011, a young man with an untreated mental illness murdered six and wounded thirteen, including Giffords, in the parking lot of a Safeway grocery story.

I was absolutely thrilled when I watched Giffords’ appearance on television and read the stories. Most focused on her recovery from her traumatic brain injury. One of the reasons why I have been so impressed with Giffords and her astronaut husband, Mark Kelly, is that they have shown great forgiveness and compassion whenever they have spoken about the gunman, Jared Lee Loughner and his parents. Both easily could have blamed the parents and spoken with contempt and hatred about Loughner. But in their statements, they have mentioned that he was ill.

Before the candle-light vigil, I was called by reporter Terry Greene Sterling who was writing a story about Giffords for The Daily Beast . She asked me to describe the obstacles that parents of adult children face when their son or daughter develops a mental disorder but refuse treatment.  A few days after the Tucson shooting, I published an Op Ed editorial in USA TODAY that was headlined: Don’t Blame The Parents of Jared Loughner. At last count, that article had received more than 315 comments and most, sadly, were negative and critical of my stance. The commentators were quick to blame Loughner’s  parents.

I was pleased that Sterling spoke to me and mentioned in her story how Loughner is now caught in a legal limbo hell as his attorney fights with the government about whether or not he should be forcibly medicated and made “sane” enough to be put on trial for murder.

I was disappointed, however, that I didn’t see a single article about the anniversary that asked whether Arizona had done anything to prevent these sorts of tragedies from happening in the future.  There was no mention of changes in the law or community mental health services being improved.

Did Arizona learn nothing from the shootings?

The Washington Post magazine story and the media’s coverage of the Tucson shootings reminded me of how easy it is to judge, attack, blame  and criticize  — especially on the Internet where you can hide behind anonymity — and how difficult it is for many people to think about how they might react if someone in their family suffered a brain  impediment.

One of my favorite quotes has always been by a Roman philosopher:

 If you would judge, understand.

—-Lucius Annaeus Seneca

My new non-fiction book, The Serial Killer Whisperer, is being published today, which means that after months of waiting and hard work, the book will go on sale and be judged by professional critics and readers.

I was thrilled that my morning began with two strong endorsements.

Writing in the New York Journal of Books,  psychotherapist and serial killer expert, Laura Schultz, wrote:

There are many aspects of The Serial Killer Whisper that make it unique in the true crime genre and as a biography. Author Pete Earley is a talented conduit of this true portrayal of an unlikely and unconventional kinship between lost souls and the frailties of human psyche.

Mr. Earley resists the temptation to either moralize or sensationalize the killers or tout himself as an armchair psychologist. Without commentary on the brutality of the heinous crimes committed, the story speaks for itself. In brilliant journalistic fashion, the author recounts the horrific details and brutality of the crimes with complete objectivity. Each excerpt and word appears to have been carefully considered to accurately depict the tale of interwoven lives and the methodology that develops a complex criminal puzzle and follows it through to its completion.

The Serial Killer Whisper is definitely not for the faint of heart. But readers who are fascinated with this subject matter, particularly true crime aficionados, will be mesmerized by the contents and implications of this book. In the end, many will still be unbearably moved by the grisly nature of the murders and the magnitude of cruelty that comprises the lethal nature of a serial killer. But no one can soon forget the characters in this honest, true crime portrayal.

Writing on the website, CRIMESCAPE, reviewer Dr. Katherine Ramsland wrote:

The Serial Killer Whisperer, is quite unique, because its central figure is an adolescent boy with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) that makes him remarkably resonant with some of the meanest men alive. Thus, this compelling narrative revolves around the most salient issue in criminology today: the criminal brain… 

The book’s focus is not the killers. Their cold-blooded letters, while sickening, soon begin to sound pretty much alike: “I did this to her and then I did that…” The real story centers on what happens to Tony Ciaglia and his family as they move into this dark realm…

Just because he [Tony] had a similar brain dysfunction did not make him a potential serial killer… With his father’s help, Tony turned his traumatic brain injury into a gift. Because the killers talked about as-yet unsolved murders, they’d provided clues that could help close some cold cases. Tony now had a sense of purpose.

I have published enough books to realize that my new book will not please everyone, especially because of its gruesome and graphic subject matter. But it is gratifying to know that these two reviewers, both of whom have studied serial killers and are well-versed in literature about the criminal mind, have found the story that I have written about Tony Ciaglia and his relationship with some of America’s cruelest killers worth reading.

The letters that Tony Ciaglia exchanged with some of our nation’s most infamous murderers over a six year period are different because the serial killers were writing to someone whom they considered to be a friend and, therefore wrote openly about their feelings, fantasies and desires.  What they revealed is truly terrifying.

In her review of my book, Critic Schultz chose two samples to share:

“On the first day of school, it didn’t go well. The kid behind me kept making fun of my shoes because they were hand-me-downs. The class was laughing so I turned around and stuck my pencil through his hand.”
— Serial killer Glen Rogers — aka the Cross Country Killer who bragged about murdering 70 women

“I remember every one of them and every detail with each one. Why did I use my bare hands? To feel life slipping away and then release your grip and bring them back. Ah, that is a feeling. So powerful, so real”
— Arthur Shawcross — aka The Genesee River Killer who confessed to 11 murders

I begin my book with a quote, but it is not from one of the serial killers. It is from one of my favorite authors: Jack Olsen.

I start every book with the idea that I want to explain how this seven or eight pounds of protoplasm went from his mommy’s arms to become a serial rapist or serial killer. I think a crime book that doesn’t do this is pure pornography.

According to the FBI, at any time in the U.S. there are some fifty serial killers walking among us.  The Serial Killer Whisperer gives us an insight into their hollow souls thanks to the writings that they exchanged with a young man who found a purpose in his life in the most unlikely way — by connecting with monsters.

Gore abducted, raped, and murdered Elliott’s daughter, Lynn, age 17, in Vero Beach. He has been on death row for nearly thirty years. 

I certainly did not write my book to prompt the death of anyone, including Gore. But my book has re-ignited interest in his case and is stirring strong emotions in Vero Beach.

The book describes the plight of Tony Ciaglia, who was hit in the skull by a speeding jet ski when he was 15 years old. He died three times en route to the hospital but was revived. After several weeks in a coma, Ciaglia awoke much different from the carefree, happy, and popular teen he had been. Filled with rage, often uncontrollable, and suffering from damage to the front lobe of his brain, Ciaglia spent much of the next several years under a self-imposed house arrest.  At times, he was suicidal. Bored and aimless, he needed a hobby and by chance he began writing serial killers. His psychiatric problems mimicked those of the killers and he was able to befriend many of them and get them to share their inner-most thoughts with him. Today, he tries to help the police with his ability to communicate with killers.

My book, which will be officially released Tuesday (tomorrow), contains correspondence between Ciaglia and numerous serial killers, including Gore. In his letters, Gore shows absolutely no remorse, no empathy, no sorrow, no regrets and, in fact, describes with pornographic pleasure how he abducted, tortured, raped, and murdered six women in the Vero Beach area, including Lynn Elliott.

I had spoken to Carl Elliott Jr. for the book, but we had only talked on the telephone until last week when I happened to be in Vero Beach. I sat down with him and three others whose loved ones had been murdered by Gore. Our meeting was arranged by Russ Lemmon, a well-respected columnist for the local Vero Beach newspaper and it came about because of a coincidence that had me wearing two hats.

*****

I went to Vero Beach to give the keynote address at the third annual mental health symposium sponsored by the Indian River County Mental Health Collaborative. They asked me to speak about my book, CRAZY: A Father’s Search Through America’s Mental Health Madness, and the criminalization of persons with mental disorders.

I certainly did not plan on talking about my newest book. I am always careful to keep a wall between my mental health advocacy and my new book about serial killers because of stigma against persons such as my son. Serial killers fall into a completely different category from persons with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression. When I flew to Florida, I had no intention of discussing  my new book.

But Lemmon, a columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers, published a front page story about my book on the day before my speech.  The headline of his column in the Press Journal newspaper was: New Book on Serial Killers Includes Stomach-Turning Letters from Gore.

My arrival in Vero Beach and the timing of his column were not the only coincidence that day.

Lemmon was scheduled later that afternoon to meet with Florida Governor Rick Scott. When he did, Lemmon gave the governor a copy of his column and told him that the residents of Vero Beach wanted to know why Gore hadn’t been executed since he’d exhausted all of his legal appeals. Lemmon told Gov. Scott that he needed to read my book and pay particular attention to Gore’s callous letters to Ciaglia. 

I had no idea that Lemmon was meeting with the governor nor how much of an impact the page one story would cause until I was preparing to give my keynote. Lemmon contacted me and explained that several family members of Gore’s victims, including the Elliotts, had heard that I was in town and wanted to meet me. He warned me that at least two of the relatives were upset and angry. They wanted to know if my book glorified Gore.

######

I began my day at the symposium. Valerie Smith, a local member of NAMI, gave the first speech and did an incredible job talking about what life is like when a family member has a mental disorder. Her talk reminded me of the importance of NAMI members speaking out and telling “our”  stories. Dr. Mark S. Gold, the chair of psychiatry at the University of Florida, spoke next about addiction. He was followed by Michael Thompson, the director of the Justice Center for the Council of State Governments, who gave a compelling, data-filled  report that showed how it made more economic sense to fund treatment programs that help persons with mental disorders rather than warehousing them in  jails.  To date, there are close to a half million persons with serious mental illnesses in American jails and prisons. I was the final speaker.

One reason why I was excited about the symposium was because my good friend, Judge Steven Leifman, was its moderator. He was responsible for getting me access into the Miami Dade jail for my mental health book. Since then, he has become a nationally recognized leader in mental health. His Florida Partners in Crisis program is an effective advocacy organization that should be copied in other states.

My visit to Vero Beach was paid for by The Robert F. and Eleonora W. McCabe Foundation, which was founded by the McCabes with a $2 million seed donation. Ellie’s son, Roy Johnson, committed suicide in Virginia in 1999 at age 42. Among other things, the foundation has created a unique collaborative program with the University of Florida. The foundation pays the salary of a psychiatrist/professor who lives in Vero Beach and oversees the work of interns from the school. Dr. Wayne Creelman not only treats patients but also monitors the interns, providing the community with much needed psychiatric care and introducing the students to the town, in the hope, that some of them will establish practices in Vero Beach after they graduate.

The McCabes are examples of  individuals who faced a family tragedy and decided to do something about it by using their resources to improve the lives of persons with mental illnesses.

******

 As soon as the symposium ended, I drove to the newspaper to meet with Lemmon and the families of Gore’s victims. I explained that I had not written the book to glorify Gore. I’d written it because I thought that Tony Ciaglia’s story was fascinating and because his letters with serial killers gave readers an unvarnished glimpse into the minds of  cold-blooded murderers.

The meeting quickly turned emotional. 

Both of the Elliotts became teary-eyed when they discussed how Gore had kidnapped Lynn one afternoon in July 1983 when she and a 14 year-old friend decided to hitchhike from one popular beach to another farther up the coast. That spur of the moment decision cost Lynn her life.  

Gore and his cousin, Fred Waterfield, offered the two teens a ride and then drove them to a house where the two men repeatedly raped them.  Lynn broke free and escaped, running naked into the front yard. Gore, also naked, chased her and shot her to death a few feet outside the house. After tossing her body into the trunk of his car, he went back inside to terrorize the 14 year-old. A boy, who happened to be pedaling his bicycle by the house, saw the shooting and called the police.

Jeanne Elliott told me that her daughter’s murder had nearly destroyed her life. One thing that helped her survive was her belief that Lynn’s failed escape attempt had finally brought Gore and his cousin’s killing spree to an end. The 14 year-old girl was rescued.

 The Elliotts told me that the death of their daughter eventually played a role in them getting a divorce. It had a ripple impact on the other families too. The son of one murdered woman committed suicide. The father of another teenager, who was raped and murdered, had a fatal heart attack that his family felt was prompted by his daughter’s murder. 

I am not certain if I was able to calm the fears of the relatives about my book. But all of us left that meeting with a clear understanding of how Gore’s actions had caused tremendous suffering in Vero Beach.

Columnist Lemmon has been tirelessly calling for Gore’s execution and on Sunday, he published another column about my book that included one of Gore’s letters. In it, Gore describes how he and his cousin plotted different ways they could abduct an entire busload of high school cheerleaders when the local high school team was playing a game out of town. At the time, Gore was an auxiliary sheriff’s officer and he intended to stop the bus on a ruse and then take the girls to a remote location to abuse and kill.

Lemmon warned his readers that my book is not for the faint of heart because of its graphic descriptions of rape, torture and murder.

As the father of two girls, I felt tremendous empathy for Carl Elliott Jr., who now is in his eighties. One of the things that surprised me about him was that Carl insisted on seeing his daughter’s body after she was murdered. When I asked him why he would put himself through that ordeal, he said that he wanted to remember what Gore had done.

He told the police, “I want to see every mark on her body, where he drug her in the driveway and all the skinned-up parts on her knees and elbows, and every damn bullet hole. I want to see every scrape and every bruise. I want to remember in case I ever get soft on this thing. I want to remember, by God, that’s what this bastard did to my daughter. It was awful (the experience) but I have never regretted doing it.”

 My trip to Vero Beach turned out much different from what I had expected. It also has caused me a number of sleepless nights. Seeing the pain in the Elliott’s faces was a haunting experience. As soon as I got home, I called both of my daughters and told them how much I loved them.

Since launching this blog on January 1, 2010, I have written 184 posts. In an average month, between 2,000 to 3,000 readers check to see what I have posted. When a blog is especially controversial that number can jump to  6,000. Readers have posted 1,000 comments. Thank you for your interest.

I started this blog after several New York publishers rejected an idea for a book that I called HOPE.  I wanted to write about successful mental health treatment programs that were helping people recover. Unfortunately, the editors who heard my pitch were not interested in a book about success stories. I began this blog because I wanted to continue writing about issues, mostly mental health related, that are important to me, especially hope.  

The start of a New Year is a good time for reflection -  so I have reviewed my 184  posts and picked out a handful to highlight.  If you didn’t read them when they were originally posted, perhaps you will glance at them now. 

(1.)  The most controversial blog that I have written, appeared on October 4, 2010, under the title:  An Alternative Voice Courtesy of You!   

In that blog, I questioned whether the federal government should be paying for a yearly ”ALTERNATIVE” mental health conference that featured presenters who opposed mainstream psychiatric treatment. One lecturer argued that mental disorders do not really exist. My column outraged several people who had participated and helped organize that conference and they were quick to sent out emails condemning me. This resulted in a barrage of  angry comments,  including some personal attacks. The blog and the response that I received was a reminder of just how divided the so-called mental health community is when it comes to treatment and, more importantly, forced medication.

2. On  July 9, 2010, I revealed in a blog that my friend, Sergei Tretyakov, had died unexpectedly at age 53.  Although the Associated Press declined to give me credit for announcing Tretyakov’s death — explaining that a blog was not a legitimate news source — the New York Times, Washington Post and scores of other media published my information. Sergei was the subject of my New York Times best-seller, COMRADE J: The Untold Secrets of Russia’s Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War. In 2000, he and his family quietly defected while he was the highest ranking Russian intelligence officer stationed in New York City. His wife, Helen, asked me to make public his unexpected death. 

  Unfortunately, Sergei’s death happened only days before the FBI arrested eleven Russian  illegals, including the sexpot, Anna Chapman. This led to widespread speculation that Sergei had tipped off the FBI, which wasn’t the case, and that he had been murdered by Russian secret agents in retaliation, which was ludicrous.

3. Another story that attracted national news was Linda’s Story, Part One and Part Two,    I wrote about how Joan Bishop had attempted to get her sister, Linda, treatment for her severe mental illness. When Linda was discharged from a state hospital in New Hampshire, Joan wasn’t told.  Only later did she discover that Linda had walked a few miles from the hospital and taken refuge in an unoccupied farmhouse. Terrorized by her own thoughts, living only on apples from trees outside the house, Linda kept a diary that chronicled her eventual death by starvation, including her final entry:

Dec. 18th.
This is my 13th day without food. Fell yesterday when coming in from getting snow for water, hurt left knee, shoulder and cheekbone, writing this lying down – only time I feel good is when I am sleeping because then I forget.

Linda’s story was first reported in a local newspaper. Then Joan contacted me and eventually Rachel Aviv, a reporter for The New Yorker . The magazine story prompted numerous commentaries about forced medication and civil rights.

4.  I was watching a college basketball game during March Madness when a Burger King commercial made me so angry I decided to write a blog about it. Let’s Make Burger King Accountable  took issue with the advertisement that showed the company’s King mascot smashing a window and being wrestled down by two men in white coats because he was “crazy.”  I contacted my friends at the Washington Post  and at the National Alliance on Mental Illness, whose executive director, Mike Fitzpatrick, responded with a strong letter to Burger King’s president, condemning the company’s stigmatizing ad. Several national news organizations picked up on Mike’s letter and Burger King eventually issued a weak-kneed statement. Of course, it claimed that it never meant to offend anyone and then its spin masters attempted to use the publicity to generate hamburger sales by emphasizing that the company had low prices. I’ve not bought a Burger King food product since.

5. Of all the blogs that I have written, one of my favorites is Another Earley Advocates! The reason should be obvious. It is about my son who has become a certified peer-to-peer specialist and now goes into jails and prisons to help people with severe mental illnesses. I am tremendously proud of him. He is an example that recovery is possible if a person is given the tools that he needs to get better.

Which brings me to the final blog from the past two years that I would like you to consider. In the Importance of Speaking Out   I wrote about a letter that I had received from a mother whose son has a severe mental illness. She told me that her son had been psychotic and homeless for years and then one day sought help at a community treatment center. When they checked his pockets, they found a scrap of paper that he had kept. It was from an article that I had written for USA Today about Psycho Donuts, a California company that peddles donuts by making fun of persons with mental disorders. I had explained in that article that persons with mental disorders should not be blamed for their illnesses and that sentence was what her son had clung too. When I wrote that article, I had no idea it would touch his life — yet it did.

And that is the point of speaking out. Your voice matters. You can make a difference! You can help people — sometimes without even knowing it.

Be well, have hope, and continue to help others during 2012!

Last week, I explained why I believe the “dangerousness” criteria is an impediment to getting people the help that they need. One reason why civil rights activists pushed hard in the 1970s to get “dangerousness” established was because forcing someone into a state mental hospital was a draconion move.  Being committed was often a de facto life prison sentence. Barbaric treatments, such as forced lobotomies, destroyed lives.

What happens today if someone is forcibly committed?

 In Virginia, on average, you will spend five days or less in a locked mental ward. Your “treatment” will be medication and, if you are willing, therapy in groups where the topic will center almost exclusively on the importance of taking medication. After your five days end, you will be discharged. If you are fortunate, you will be linked to community services. But there’s a good chance that you will be released without any serious follow up.

In short, your life will have been disrupted — not only by your illness – but by the state. Yet, little will be done to actually help you recover from your disorder or help you better handle your symptoms.

This is not meaningful treatment. It explains why some critics are so adamant about clinging to the “dangerousness” criteria. Deep down, they do not believe involuntary commitments benefit anyone. 

In 1959, Dr. Morton Birnbaum was studying public policy and mental illness at Harvard University in a post-doctorate program when he hit upon an idea. His proposal later became known as the “right to treatment” argument. Put simply, Dr. Birnbaum argued that if the state decided to deprive a citizen of his liberty, the state was then obligated by the U.S. Constitution to provide that individual with real and effective treatment. 

I interviewed Dr. Birnbaum for my book, CRAZY: A Father’s Search Through America’s Mental Health Madness, and he told me that his goal had been to force state legislatures to provide meaningful services to patients in mental hospitals. Unfortunately, the civil rights lawyers – who initially teamed-up with Birnbaum and then took over the legal cases that Birnbaum [who was both an attorney and medical doctor] had filed — had a different agenda. They wanted to close down all state hospitals.

Dr. Birnbaum eventually broke away from these legal activists who went on to play a key role in the deinstitutionalization movement.

I believe that the best way to rid ourselves of the ill-conceived “dangerousness” criteria, is by actually offering meaningful help to people who need it. If we accomplished that in our communities, the number of forced commitments would drop and the commitment process would be seen more as a gateway to recovery than a punishment. 

What we need is a national, legal standard that would define meaningful treatment.

Let me give you an illustration. Before I wrote CRAZY, I spent a  considerable amount of my career writing about jails and prisons. I was a reporter in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the 1970s when a federal judge took control of the state’s poorly funded prisons and forced the state legislature to spend tax dollars to improve living conditions in them. I also wrote about class actions lawsuits that activists filed on behalf of inmates. Over time, a national standard was adopted. Prisoners won the right to attend religious services, live in a minimum amount of square feet, have access to medical and dental care, eat well balanced meals and regularly shower and exercise.

The civil rights movement in mental health that happened in the 1970s and 1980s  was geared — not at winning patients the right to better treatment — but in protecting them from being forced to accept  any treatment.  At that  time, that may have seemed sensible. Is it now?

Why, I wonder, can’t Dr. Birnbaum’s “right to treatment” theory be used to guarantee specific rights to anyone who is involuntarily committed?  Why is there no national standard that spells out what services an ill person MUST be provided?

I’m not only talking about access to medications. I’m talking about requiring states to provide evidence based practices, such as excellent case management, access to assertive community treatment teams, Housing First opportunities, peer-to-peer support, transportation and other wrap-around services.

Since writing CRAZY, I have seen dozens of successful recovery programs and I have come to believe that most people who show the symptoms of a serious mental disorder can get better — especially when they get meaningful treatment.  Is there a way that we can use Dr. Birnbaum’s “right to treatment” claim to force states to provide the best — not minimal – services to persons who are committed? Can’t we argue that to do anything less is to deny that patient’s legal right to treatment?

What I am proposing it not a new idea. In fact, it is what Dr. Birnbaum’s hoped would happen decades ago when he first coined the term. It’s about time we listened to him.

What do you think? What sort of national standard would you envision?

A front page story in The Washington Post yesterday was published under the headline: “Hinckley: Man on the mend or a danger?”

According to the story, a federal judge will decide the fate of would-be assasin John W. Hinckley Jr., this week after listening to five days of testimony.  Hinckley’s family members, as well as his doctors and case manager, claim the now 56-year old Hinckley does not present a danger either to himself or to the community. The depression and unspecified mental disorder that drove him — along with his narcissistic personality disorder — to nearly kill President Ronald Reagan in 1981 are now all under control.

That’s not so, prosecutors claim. They insist that  Hinckley, who has spent the past three decades in mental facilities,  is deceptive, lazy, and can’t be trusted. The Post quoted Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Chasson stating, “Mr. Hinckley has not been a good risk in the past and, therefore, is not going to be a good risk in the future.”

The judge is being asked to determine if Hinckley is “dangerous.”  If he is, the judge will not grant him more freedom than the ten day visits that he currently is allowed periodically with his mother — while being monitored by the U.S. Secret Service.

I often am asked how “dangerous”  became the criteria that is used  to decide if someone is so mentally ill that he/she can be involuntarily held and forced to undergo treatment. The question is an important one, especially for those of us who have loved ones with mental disorders.

If you read my book, CRAZY, you know that I tried to get my son help when he suffered a psychotic break, only to be turned away by an emergency room doctor who said my son didn’t meet Virginia’s “imminent danger” criteria. Some forty-eight hours later, my son was arrested after he broke into a stranger’s house to take a bubble bath.

The dangerous standard has become so widely accepted in the U.S. that it has become the de facto criteria that many insurance companies now use in deciding if someone who wants to voluntarily enter a treatment program will have their mental health care costs covered.

Most scholars credit the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which was approved by the California legislature in 1967, as the beginning of a civil rights movement in mental health law. But while the LPS, as it is known, opened the door, it was Lessard v Schmidt - a Wisconsin civil case in 1971 — that radically changed mental health laws.

After purportedly trying to kill herself, Alberta Lessard was involuntarily committed to a state facility where she was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. She enlisted help from local civil rights activists who filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Wisconsin’s civil commitment law. As was common at the time, involuntary commitment laws were unclear and broad. In Wisconsin, a “mentally ill individual” could be involuntarily committed if “he required care and treatment for his own welfare or the welfare of others or of the community.”

Lessard’s attorneys successfully argued that if the state intended to deprive an individual of his/her freedom in a civil commitment hearing, then that citizen deserved the same legal protections as an accused criminal whose freedom also was at risk.  The judge agreed and, among other things, ruled that persons with mental illnesses had a right to a jury trial, the right to appointed counsel, the right to remain silent, exclusion of hearsay evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, the Lessard decision caused a major swing in the pendulum.

 The Lessard case also established that immediate dangerousness had to be shown. There had to be evidence of  “an extreme likelihood that if the person is not confined he will do immediate harm to himself or others” otherwise, there could be no forced commitment. It was a popular concept born from the 1960s.  If someone is not hurting himself or anyone else, then why interfere?

The Lessard decision made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent it back to lower courts twice for revisions. In one ruling, the word “extreme” was replaced with “imminent danger.” Eventually, the Wisconsin legislature reacted to the Lessard case by drafting a new civil commitment law that required imminent physical dangerous to self or others (homicidal or suicidal.) Other states soon began patterning their laws after Lessard and ”imminent dangerousness” became the test.

It soon became obvious that  the “imminent dangerous” criteria was itself, dangerous. In one well publicized court case, a man who had a long history of schizophrenia who was sleeping under cars at night and eating his own feces was not considered to be a danger to himself or others because neither of those acts was proven to be harmful to his health.

Dr. Darold Treffert, a Wisconsin doctor and veteran mental health leader in the state, was among the first to document tragedies where clearly psychotic individuals died because they were not considered dangerous and could not be forced into a hospital, but were so psychotic that they literally froze to death in the streets during harsh winters, committed suicide or died because of circumstances clearly tied to their untreated illnesses. Dr. Treffert coined the term “dying with their rights on.”

By 1995, thirty-five states and the District of Columbia had amended their civil commitment laws. Most dropped “imminent” and simply said a person had to be “dangerous.” Others decided that judges could consider other criteria such as “gravely disabled” or “unable to care for self or others.” 

Ironically, Wisconsin went even further in 1996 when its legislature modified its civil commitment laws. The new language allows commitment if there appears to be a ”substantial probability” that the ill person ”needs care and treatment to prevent further disability or deterioration” and “ if left untreated… [will] suffer severe mental, emotional or physical harm…” and “[shows] an incapability of expressing an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of accepting medication or treatment, and, of the alternatives to the particular medication or treatment offered, after the advantages/disadvantages and alternatives have been explained.”

Talk about a swinging pendulum. The new law is certainly much different from what the Wisconsin legislature unleashed after Lessard.

The problem with using “dangerousness” should be obvious. A friend of mine was bringing her adult son home from his appointment with his psychiatrist in New York when they ran into a traffic jam on the Verrazano bridge. The doctor had just assured my friend that her son was stable. Without saying a word, the young man opened the car door and leaped to his death.

Ironically, in the same Sunday edition of The Washington Post, there was another story that caught my eye. It was about Thursday’s fatal shooting of a campus police officer on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg. The 22 year old shooter, who committed suicide after murdering the officer, was from a nearby town and had no known history of mental illness or known drug problems, the article reported. In fact, his friends saw nothing that would suggest he was dangerous.

Obviously, the judge in the Hinckley case is being asked to decide if it is safe to allow Hinckley more freedom. He is not being asked to decide if an “imminent danger” exists that justifies Hinckley being involuntarily held. That issue became mute as soon as Hinckley shot the president. Just the same, I am curious about how the judge will make his decision.

According to the Post, prosecutors will claim that Hinckley continues to be dangerous because since the 1981 shooting, he has:

1. had failed relationships with three women, all of whom, he met while they were patients with him in a mental hospital. In one instance, he invited two of them to the same party at the hospital at the same time.

2. that he lied twice about going to see movies, when he actually went into bookstores. On one occasion, he was seen scanning books about President Reagan, including one that described the attempted assassination.

3. that he looked up photos of a dentist on the Internet and then faked a tooth ache so he could meet her.

His therapists claim the three flaws cited above were simply examples of his “poor judgment.” The prosecutor sees something more sinister. I suspect the judge will not know — even after listening to testimony for five days — if  Hinckley continues to be a threat. I suspect the judge will make his decision based on community safety or what’s politically expedient.

What I do know is this. If Hinckley had not fired at the president, were free today, and his family was concerned about his actions and asked a court to involuntarily commit him based on the three flaws cited above, he would not meet the “dangerousness” criteria and his parents would be unable to force him into treatment.

Which brings me to the point of this blog. Predicting dangerousness is fraught with error. It is a foolish criteria.

How interesting then, that we have laws that prevent concerned parents and doctors from intervening when an adult is clearly psychotic (sleeping under cars and eating feces) until that individual becomes dangerous  — and then once that person crosses that line, we decide that the slightest oddity in their behavior — such as inviting two women to a party at the same time — is an ominious signal that the person is untrustworthy.