Part Two: Dr. Death: The Texas Death Row Psychiatrist Who Killed So Many People

We conclude the story and life of "Dr. Death", which culminates in, predictably, a lot of dead people. See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:05Robert Evans?

  And we're back to Behind the Bastards, the podcast that's about the people who are bad, which is today, this week, Dr. James Grigson and the broader industry cottage industry, he helps ignite of psychiatrists who go to court and be like, yeah, man, absolutely kill that motherfucker. Um, which is only slightly less direct than the actual job was. Uh, with us again, our guest, Stephen Monaselli. Stephen, how you doing?

• 0:33Speaker 01

  Ah, I'm, you know, I'm, I'm doing.

• 0:36Robert Evans?

  You're doing?

• 0:37Speaker 01

  I'm doing. Well, yeah, I'm here.

• 0:39Robert Evans?

  Mm hmm. What are you doing?

• 0:41Speaker 01

  Uh, we're about to talk about some really, really uplifting, heartening, um, trust inducing stuff like makes me really love the system and the medical profession as a whole.

• 0:55Robert Evans?

  It's good. It's, I mean, you know, here's the thing. What's frustrating is the medical profession as a whole is trying to do the right thing here. Like they keep being like, this guy is a crank. This guy is a crank. It just doesn't matter for a long time. Um, this is kind of an early example of the hell we're in now, where it's like all of the people who know anything about, for example, climate, or for example, how infectious diseases work, or anything else to do with like vaccines and medicine, all of these like people who know things, space travel, people who know things about that are being like, nah, this is all, this is really fucked up. Like you're, you're shooting us in the foot. All of these different cuts to research are horrible. Everything that's being done is going to make

• 1:39Robert Evans?

  life worse for everybody. But the only people that matter are the ones who are saying, nah, uh, and you're, you're kind of get an early version. This is like a prologue for all of the hell that we're in right now. This like anti-science bullshit. Well, I feel like a good psychiatrist should be able to say, oh yeah, this man is definitely going to kill again because I've diagnosed him with something I believe, thanks to TV, is a real diagnosis. This is our like Star Wars prequel of the anti-science hell that we're all trapped in now.

• 2:08Speaker 01

  Yeah, the, the sort of non-expert expert, the person who is more than willing to set aside all of the good things about whatever field they nominally belong to in order to like push some sort of quackery or ideology.

• 2:23Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 2:24Speaker 01

  It's, yeah, it's, we've seen it in a lot of fields, unfortunately, and to horrible extents, like the Russians with their, was it Lamarckism?

• 2:33Robert Evans?

  Oh, God, no, no, no, Lysenkoism, Lysenkoism.

• 2:36Speaker 01

  Lysenkoism, sorry, sorry, Lysenkoism. I'm, I'm certainly not an expert in the history of genetic research, but I digress. Yeah, a really, really horrible person here that we're talking about today.

• 2:47Robert Evans?

  It is interesting to compare it to Lysenkoism, which is like, you had obviously actual agricultural scientists in the USSR, and then you had this guy being like, no, plants work the same way we're pretty sure people do, you know? And you can, you can like freeze a crop and you'll, it'll pass down cold resistance to, it's like, no, that doesn't, and, and there were a lot of people saying, no, that doesn't work, but the, the, the scientist who happened to be in alignment with the politics of the people, you know, in charge, was the scientist who got declared to be right and damn the consequences. And likewise here, you've got the whole APA being like, at no point should psychiatrists ever do what this guy is doing, right? But you've got people in Texas and prosecutors and the government of Texas being like, no, this is pretty much how we think it, it should work.

• 3:32Robert Evans?

  So this guy's right and he gets to make a lot of money.

• 3:36Speaker 01

  Conveniently a tool of the state and its interest at the time.

• 3:40Robert Evans?

  Yeah, yeah, it's great.

• 3:44Speaker 02

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.

• 3:49Robert Evans?

  Picture this, you're listening to the Sniffy's Cruising Confessions podcast and suddenly, wait, what did they just say? Well, the questions raised in those show-stopping moments will be answered in the all-new bonus series, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions: Bedside Manor. Hosts Gabe and Chris will dive deep on a specific topic covered in that week's Tuesday episode, from sexual health and HIV prevention to finding the right doctor. Listen to this special bonus series, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions: Bedside Manor, now on the iHeart Radio app or wherever you get podcasts. Sponsored by... Healthy sexual from Gilead Sciences. Dude wipes remove what toilet paper leaves behind. Flushable, plastic-free dude wipes are made with 99% water and plant-based ingredients. They're gentle enough for sensitive skin, but tough enough for methods of historical proportions.

• 4:33Robert Evans?

  Unlike baby wipes, dude wipes are flushable and designed to begin breaking down when flushed. No battles there. They come in a range of at-home and travel-friendly formats, from individually wrapped singles to 48-count big daddies. Don't let skids be your lasting legacy. Grab a dude wipe and destroy the evidence. Dude wipes, best clean, pants down. Available at major retailers nationwide.

• 4:56Robert Evans?

  So from this point forward in the story, our boy Dr. Grigson, aka Dr. Death, is gonna continue to expand and extend his practice throughout the 80s, while also dealing with constant and mounting criticism from organized psychiatry as a field. Now, the core of the complaints against him have to do with his continued insistence on using the results of competency tests, which he's not supposed to be doing, right? But there's some evidence that he keeps doing it after he's told not to by the Supreme Court. And then kind of the bigger issue is, again, that he's, he's making predictions about the future, which he shouldn't be doing. Even after being chided by the APA in that Supreme Court case, he continued to rank sociopathy on a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being the worst. And as noted in an article by the Death Penalty Information Center, he would regularly

• 5:41Robert Evans?

  rank people higher than 10. Like, the 1 through 10 seemed to be, like, mostly pointless, because he would always go above 10, right? And up to 12, 13, and even 14, which is just what, like, again, like, if you're gonna go above 10 on a 1 to 10, yeah, you, you, you just say, like, "Oh, he's an 11." Like, a 14? So why even have a 1 to 10 scale if someone could be that high above it? What are you doing? Like, why even introduce that idea from the beginning? I promise I'm not going to beat on that the whole time. It's just very frustrating to me.

• 6:14Robert Evans?

  Now, these numbers are, again, infuriating if you know anything about psychiatry or probability, but they get even more sickening when you dig into the actual stories of the people that Dr. Grigson diagnosed as a 100% sociopaths who would 100% kill again. He is often saying a 99% chance they'll kill again. Sometimes he says 100% chance they'll kill again, right? And we know that in a lot of cases, he was objectively wrong. And because we have examples like, and this is probably the most prominent case of him being wrong, the tale of Randall Dale Adams. In 1977, Adams was convicted of the murder of a Dallas, Texas, police officer, Robert Wood. Officer Wood was shot to death in late 1976, the same year that Texas finally

• 6:59Robert Evans?

  established its new rules for deciding death penalty cases. Now, we know who the actual shooter was. It was a guy named David Harris who framed Randall Adams to avoid being convicted of the crime. Adams's conviction relied heavily on testimony from three witnesses who were illegally hidden from the defense until they showed up in court. And said testimony, we also know, was at least partially perjured. So not only did the defense hide these witnesses when they shouldn't have, but the witnesses were coaxed and bribed into giving false testimony. And we know this, right? So we're already starting with crimes on the part of the prosecution in this case. Now, that begs the question, why are the police and why is the prosecutor so

• 7:43Robert Evans?

  gung ho to go after a guy with evidence they know, like that they know they're having to cook up, right? That they know isn't true. And you would assume, just knowing cops, it's because, like, you know, police, just for whatever reason, decided this was the guy. And we're like, well, we can just kind of coax the truth into making sure that we are able to, like, make a stronger case. And the prosecutor went along with it, right? That's actually not what happened. So what's really going on here is that David Harris, the guy who actually kills this person in this robbery gone wrong, is 16 years old.

• 8:19Robert Evans?

  Right? And they know Harris does it from the beginning. He's the first guy they take into custody. They find that he like the gun that was used in the shooting was his dad's gun that he had access to that night. So it's very clear that this is Harris, but you can't give a 16 year old the death penalty in Texas, right? And it's a cop he's murdered. And so the police, even more than making sure the right guy gets executed, the police want to make sure that when a cop gets murdered, someone gets executed, right? And when it becomes clear, Harris can't be executed, Harris is like, well, I'll give you this other guy who like drove me there, right? And Randall Adams, part of why Adams is a good patsy dependent

• 9:01Robert Evans?

  on is that Daryl Harris is like a kid. He like lives with his parents. So he's, he's someone who has something of like a normal life. And Randall Adams is a drifter, right? He's like doing day labor. He doesn't come from the state. He's kind of, you know, he's, he's, I think he has a car, but he's essentially a homeless man, right? And so it's really easy to kill him, right? And really easy to like, kill him because he's not going to have any kind of money for defense and because he's not the kind of person anyone's going to care about, right? So this kind of fits what the cops want, which is we want to make a show of force against somebody for the death of this cop. Now, there's a lot of fucked up details in the case. Everything that happens here, there's a lot of like

• 9:43Robert Evans?

  rule breaking and illegality. We don't have enough time to go into, but every detail of this case stinks about as much as it's possible for a case to stink from the get go. In the end, the jury declares Adams guilty after almost no deliberation. And as you know, because we've done our little clinic on how the Texas death penalty worked, the next step is they have to decide, should this man die, right? And this always comes down to, will he commit another violent crime if we leave him alive? Determining this case came down to Dr. Gregson and another colleague testifying about whether or not Adams was, in Dr. Gregson's terms, a maximum sociopath. Again, not a diagnosis. But Gregson testified that Randall would 100% kill again if left alive.

• 10:29Robert Evans?

  Adams, he insisted, was an extreme sociopath, so he can't even keep his terms straight. Adams is sentenced to die in 1979. And the years tick by agonizingly, you know, from this court case, until three days before his execution, the US Supreme Court stays it, right? They give him a stay of execution because Justice Louis Powell writes that there is grave concern regarding potential jurors in the case who were excluded for being anti-death penalty, even though they promised to follow Texas law if appointed, right? So that's the whole thing that saves his life initially, is that there's an appeal based on like jurors who weren't pro-death penalty were excluded illegally from service, right? And so that's the only reason he's saved initially.

• 11:13Robert Evans?

  It has nothing to do with his innocence, nothing to do with other aspects of the case. It's just this issue with the jury. Now, by rights, because this has been found by the Supreme Court, Adams should have gotten a new trial, right? It's been determined that his trial was like not valid because the rules were broken here enough that they stayed his execution. You should have a new trial. But the Dallas DA at the time, Henry Wade, and does that name sound familiar to you, Henry Wade?

• 11:38Speaker 01

  Yeah, we talked about him, I'm pretty sure, Dr. Phillips and I, on one of the episodes on It Could Happen Here. Yeah.

• 11:45Robert Evans?

  He's the Wade from Roe v. Wade, right? Like, that's, that's the, and he's on the bad side of the case, right?

• 11:52Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 11:53Robert Evans?

  So, Dr. Wade, or Henry Wade, not Dr. Wade, the DA comes in and he's like, "We don't need to give this guy a new trial. It would be a waste of money," right? "And it'll be a waste of money because I'm going to have the governor commute Adams' sentence to life in prison," right? "So he's not going to get killed anymore, so why do we care about giving him a new trial?" Right? So Adams' people are still like, "We want a new trial because he's innocent and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison." But a Texas Criminal Court of Appeals insists that like, "Well, now that he's not going to be executed, there's no longer any error in the case, so it's fine." Right? Because, you know, those jurors were just being excluded because of their opinion on the death penalty. No death penalty. Everything's good here. So that's what the Court of Appeals decides.

• 12:34Speaker 01

  God, come on.

• 12:36Robert Evans?

  And so Adams, a man everyone knows has been railroaded into a guilty verdict. A lot of this is out now and had been nearly executed due to a crooked case, seemed set to spend the rest of his life behind bars. And this is the case that he stays in until March of 1985. And the reason why he gets another shot and ultimately, thank God, I'm going to spoil it a little bit, gets freed is because of, we can thank documentarian Errol Morris. So Errol Morris is paying attention during that 1983 Supreme Court case against Dr. Grigson. And he's like, this seems really fucked up. Like this, this Dr. Death guy seems like a real asshole who's killing a shitload of people. I wonder if we can do anything

• 13:19Robert Evans?

  about that. You know, me being literally Errol Morris. So he starts working on a documentary that's initially supposed to be primarily about Dr. Grigson. And the documentary that comes out is called The Thin Blue Line, right? If you've heard of that, like that is the documentary that he makes about this case ultimately. So Morris starts working on this case. And that obviously brings a lot of attention to it. And, you know, he's able to put some resources behind it. And to talk about what happened next, I'm going to quote from an article by the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University. Morris's intent had not been to question the guilt of defendants in whose cases Grigson had testified, but only to question his psychiatric conclusions. When Morris met Adams, the focus of the project changed. Morris learned from Randy Schaefer, a volunteer Houston lawyer

• 14:01Robert Evans?

  who had been working on the case since 1982, that Harris had not led an exemplary life after helping to convict Adams. Harris, which is the guy who gives Adams up, had joined the Army and been stationed in Germany, where he had been convicted in a military court of a series of burglaries and sent to prison in Leavenworth, Kansas. A few months after his release, Harris had been convicted in California of kidnapping, armed robbery, and related crimes. So Morris is like, well, the guy who said Adams was guilty in the first place and had been the initial suspect really seems like the kind of guy who'd murder a cop, whereas Adams doesn't. And there's a bunch of other irregularities in the case. The more he looks into it, the more he finds. For one thing, it comes up again that Harris's father had owned the gun that was likely used in the shooting and that Harris had stolen

• 14:45Robert Evans?

  it. Now, this is all looking pretty bad, but what comes up next is even worse. And I'm going to continue quoting from that article. Morrison Schaefer discovered that Officer Turco, who's one of the, it's the officer that survives, her partner is killed, and she testifies about the murder, that Officer Turco had been hypnotized during the investigation and initially had acknowledged that she had not seen the killer, facts that the prosecution had illegally withheld from the defense. Morrison Schaefer also found that robbery charges against the daughter of eyewitness Emily Miller had been dropped after Miller agreed to testify Adams as Woods' killer. The new information, coupled with the fact that Miller initially had described the killer as Mexican or African-American, became the basis for a new trial motion, right?

• 15:26Robert Evans?

  So they find all this shit is fucked up and like, there's not really any evidence whatsoever that ties Adams to the murder. And ultimately, you know, there's a new trial motion. The case becomes a major cornerstone for the death row innocence project like movement, right? For the people who are, are trying to, you know, especially as forensic science is advancing, and we've got DNA now, trying to look at a lot of these people who are definitely innocent and get them off death row, get them out of prison. So in 1988, during a three-day hearing in a Dallas District Court, Harris finally recants and admits that he killed the cop that Adams was convicted of murdering. The judge in that case recommends a new trial for Adams and that Adams be paroled immediately in the meantime.

• 16:10Robert Evans?

  The Board of Pardons and Appeals initially refuses to let Adams out, but agrees to a new trial. And then after like a couple of weeks, they, he gets released anyway, and then a few days later, all charges against him are dropped. And I think this is a case of, as soon as they looked back into it, they were like, oh, there's no case whatsoever. Without the shit that the cops and the prosecutors falsified, there's absolutely nothing. We can't even give him a new trial. Like, there's not enough to even try and accuse him of here.

• 16:37Speaker 03

  It's ridiculous.

• 16:39Robert Evans?

  Yeah. I mean, it's good, right? This is an innocent man gets out of prison, you know, after having his life saved.

• 16:46Speaker 03

  It's ridiculous. It got that far, had to get to that point.

• 16:50Robert Evans?

  Yeah. So it's a major win, obviously. Randall Adams and everyone who believed in his innocence, you know, scratch up a W. But this represents a serious problem for Dr. Gregson because he had guaranteed in court that this man was an incurable sociopath who would 100% kill again. So people started asking him, like, hey, you said this innocent guy was definitely a sociopath. Were you wrong? And I, this is part of why I love that Vanity Fair piece where Rosenbaum spent like weeks traveling with Dr. Death, because, you know, this is written in 1990, but it's during a period of time in which he keeps getting questioned about Adams, because Adams is just like freed in 88. So Gregson is still testifying constantly

• 17:33Robert Evans?

  and defense attorneys are using this against him. Unfortunately, it's less successful at hurting his testimony than you might imagine. Now, this part in that Vanity Fair article comes after Gregson has just testified in one of three death penalty cases he's doing in like a long weekend with the goal of getting three people killed, right? He's trying to kill the most people that he's ever killed in his career in the shortest period of time. Like, that's what this article is about. He's got like three cases in a couple of days. He's got, he's like, can I break my record of, you know, getting people executed by the state? So during one of these cases, he's testifying and the defense attorney asks, "Do you recall the Randall Dale Adams case?" The doctor nodded warily and said, "I recall it well. Yes, sir." "Are you as sure about this defendant as you were when you declared

• 18:17Robert Evans?

  Randall Dale Adams was guilty and would kill again?" Again, the courtroom tensed up. Even out on the prairie, the papers had reported on the Adams case. Looking totally unperturbed, the doctor said dramatically, "Those people that were involved in the case know that he is guilty. I examined Mr. Adams. There is no question in my mind, as well as the mind of the jury who convicted him, that he is guilty. And did you say of Randall Adams that he will continue his previous behavior?" "I most certainly said that," the doctor said defiantly, "and he will." Right?

• 18:45Robert Evans?

  So that's two years later, he's like, no, they were wrong. He's definitely still guilty. I know it because of my psychiatry brain and I guarantee you he's gonna kill again. Right?

• 18:55Speaker 01

  It just hasn't happened yet.

• 18:57Robert Evans?

  It hasn't happened yet, but it 100% will. Right?

• 19:02Robert Evans?

  Now, Rosenbaum talks to the doctor after this case, which the prosecution wins, even though this gets brought up. And he's like, talks to him about Adams. He's like, it just seems really weird that you're insisting this guy is still guilty after all the evidence that Morris uncovered and the fact that the legal system backpedaled. And Dr. Gregson is like, no, no, no, the guy's guilty. Harris only recanted and took credit for the murder because he wanted to jack the system around. Right? And in another trial a week later, when asked the same question, Dr. Gregson continued to insist that not only was Adams guilty, but again, he will 100% kill again. Like that I have, I am 100% sure this now free man will commit another murder. Like he testified that. So that seems like a pretty good case to judge his credibility on, given that this

• 19:47Robert Evans?

  is happening in 1990 and we have 25 years of additional data into this guy's life. Right? Seems like something we should look into, which we will after these ads.

• 19:58Speaker 03

  Wow, that was so professional.

• 20:00Speaker 01

  That was a good one.

• 20:01Robert Evans?

  Thank you. I try.

• 20:05Robert Evans?

  This ad is brought to you by ViiV Healthcare, the makers of Devoto Dolutigrevir Lamivudine. If you're living with HIV, do learn about Devoto. Devoto is a complete HIV treatment by prescription only for some people 12 and older. Your doctor will determine if Devoto was right for you. Most HIV pills contain three or four medicines. Devoto is as effective with just two. No other complete HIV pill contains fewer medicines than Devoto.

• 20:29Speaker 04

  It is unknown if Devoto is safe and effective if you have HIV and hepatitis B. If you have Hep B, don't stop Devoto without talking to your doctor as it may get worse or harder to treat. Don't take Devoto if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking Defetolide due to serious or life-threatening side effects. If you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop Devoto and get medical help right away. Other serious or life-threatening side effects include severe liver problems and lactic acid buildup. If you're female or obese, you may be more at risk. Tell your doctor about your medicines or supplements, medical conditions, liver or kidney problems, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or planned pregnancy.

• 21:05Robert Evans?

  Do ask your doctor about fewer medicines. Visit devoto.com or call 1-877-844-8872.

• 21:12Robert Evans?

  History's full of dirty players. Don't let your butt be one of them. You know what bastards and buttholes both have in common? They're full of [BLEEP]. But with Dude Wipes, your butt doesn't have to be. Don't let dry TP dictate your aftermath. Dude Wipes remove what toilet paper leaves behind. Dude Wipes are the perfect poop time partner in crime at home or on the go. Flushable, plastic-free Dude Wipes are made with 99% water and plant-based ingredients. They're gentle enough for sensitive skin, but tough enough for messes of historical proportions. Unlike baby wipes, Dude Wipes are flushable and designed to begin breaking down when flushed. No battles here. They come in a range of at-home and travel-friendly formats: individually wrapped singles, eight-count pocket packs, and 48-count big daddies. So the wipe can match the crime.

• 21:57Robert Evans?

  Every time. Dude Wipes in a good World War II novel. Two bathroom musts when it comes to mustering up a great number two. So stop Stalin, grab a pack of Dude Wipes and wipe the slate clean. Dude Wipes: Best Clean Pants Down. Available at major retailers nationwide.

• 22:16Robert Evans?

  We're back. So you could say, I think it'd be fair to say, that a lot of Dr. Grigson's credibility rests on the Randall Adams case, right? Because number one, this is a guy he said was definitely guilty, who then got exonerated. And number two, he is now provided in 1990, he said 100% he'll kill again now that he's free. That's a falsifiable statement, and we have a lot of time since 1990 to kind of look at. And about 14 years after he made that statement in 2004, there was a study. I found an article about it based on the study by the Texas Defender Service into the records of 155 convicted killers to determine how often they actually engaged

• 22:59Robert Evans?

  in violent behavior post-conviction and what Dr. Grigson and other experts had predicted they would do, right? So these guys are looking into like, what can we actually tell based on the predictions made about these convicted killers and what they actually did? How accurate these predictions were, right? So, you know, that's good. Now, I'm gonna quote from that now. "Adams 55 is exhibit A in a study to be released today that found experts' witnesses' predictions of violent behavior were wrong 95% of the time."

• 23:26Speaker 01

  Oh God.

• 23:27Robert Evans?

  So that's way worse than a third, right? Exactly.

• 23:31Speaker 01

  That's like, you know, statistically significant confidence interval, like you basically can say it's gonna happen.

• 23:38Robert Evans?

  Yeah, like that is, you would think if you and I were just guessing, if we just got to go to court and like flip a coin and be like, yeah, that guy will kill again. Like you'd expect us to be righter than that.

• 23:49Speaker 01

  Oh, boy.

• 23:51Robert Evans?

  That's an incredible degree of wrong, right? So of the 155 convicted killers studied, only eight engaged in later behavior that resulted in serious injury. So eight out of 155 seriously hurt another person after their conviction. A full 20% of these convicts had zero disciplinary violations while in prison of any kind, and 75% had only minor nonviolent infractions like owning lottery tickets, right? So like, yeah, a bunch of them got in trouble after conviction, but it was because like they had an illegal lottery ticket. It wasn't because they were killing or hurting anybody. Not one of the 155 convicted killers ever murdered again, right? So very bad like rate of accuracy here.

• 24:36Robert Evans?

  Now, it's important to note, this is 2004, which is after Dr. Grigson dies and well after he stopped practicing. But it's important to note that even at the end of the 1980s, the early 1990s, there's good documented evidence that not only had Grigson been wrong on a case, but during his whole career, he'd very likely been wrong on a grand scale. I want to quote from a 2003 article for the Washington Times here. Andrea Kellen, an attorney with the Texas Defender's Service, said she knew of dozens of former death row inmates whose sentences were reduced for various reasons and who have never been involved in any difficulties, though Dr. Grigson testified they should be executed because they would likely commit murder again. In 1988, a report compiled by an assistant district attorney in Dallas concluded that

• 25:20Robert Evans?

  after the study of 11 specific death penalty verdicts where the defendant's terms had been reduced, not a single one had been anything other than a model prisoner. Mr. Halperin, in a brief for other prisoners, concluded that despite Dr. Grigson's near identical predictions that each inmate would beyond any doubt, absolutely and without any question, commit acts of dangerousness in the future, that prosecution-prepared report proved the psychiatrist was seldom accurate.

• 25:44Robert Evans?

  A DA report, this is a prosecutor, did a study of 11 death penalty verdicts where Dr. Gregson said they will definitely continue to commit crimes if not executed. And these people were not executed, their sentences were reduced, and none of them did violence again. That's 100% wrong for Dr. Gregson, right? Based on those 11 cases, you know? Jesus. So I'm not overly optimistic that he was right a bunch of the time that we don't have data on, based on that and based on the Adams case. So, you know, going into the 90s here, though, despite the fact that there is evidence building

• 26:24Robert Evans?

  that Dr. Gregson is wrong an awful lot, he is continuing to do a shitload of these cases and to be very prominent in the media. And the Adams case does nothing initially to slow his career or halt his body count. There was, however, a minor uproar as a result of Morris's documentary and Adams's exoneration. In 1993, the Texas State Supreme Court responded to the epidemic of junk science experts, but only in civil cases. So they ruled that expert testimony could only be admitted if it was proven to be both relevant and reliable, a bar that Dr. Gregson's work could not pass if any psychiatrist not named Dr. Gregson were consulted on the matter. However, this only applied to civil cases, like I said, not capital cases.

• 27:09Robert Evans?

  So there's an uproar, but it only stops psychiatrists from testifying in the cases that Dr. Gregson isn't testifying in. Now, there is still an uproar, even in Texas, about this. There are a lot of professionals that are angry about what Gregson is doing. It's just not able to stop things. Like, one of the things I found that was really wild is John Edens, who is a professor of psychiatry at my alma mater, Sam Houston State, said in the wake of this 93 decision of Dr. Gregson, "It's hard to imagine this kind of testimony would be allowed. It does not meet the criteria of reliability. There is a known error rate, which is remarkably high." So again, Sam Houston State, not a liberal university. This is the criminal justice school in Texas, right?

• 27:52Robert Evans?

  Like, this is not, it's set, it's located right next to death row, right?

• 27:57Speaker 03

  Why is there nothing, why, why are we just letting this happen, then?

• 28:01Robert Evans?

  Because any ruling against Dr. Gregson could be seen as attempting to, like, slow the death penalty. And it's really popular, unfortunately. And these are, we're coming into the Bush years now, right? Dr. Gregson is going to be really active during Bush's time as governor. And, and so like, we're kind of ramping up in the nineties to the period where Texas is like, considering its ability to continue its death row as like, this is like something that is really important to the state, right? It's something we take a degree of pride in, like my family did, you know? So it's, it's not, like, the fact that all of these experts are very much saying, this guy is not reliable, is not hurting his business yet.

• 28:46Speaker 03

  So crazy.

• 28:47Robert Evans?

  And it's also prosecutors have a lot of power, a lot of political power.

• 28:51Speaker 03

  Right.

• 28:51Robert Evans?

  Right? DA's have a lot of political power and they find him useful. So.

• 28:57Speaker 01

  So he was too important of a cog in a broader, bigger machine.

• 29:02Robert Evans?

  Right. He's really politically useful and he's useful to all their careers, right? Cause a lot of these prosecutors, part of what they're building their careers on, a lot of them want to go into other politics is like, not only do I have this many convictions, but I sent this many dangerous sociopaths to death row, right? I made our state safer.

• 29:20Speaker 03

  Yeah, okay.

• 29:21Speaker 01

  Yes. Yeah.

• 29:22Robert Evans?

  Yep.

• 29:23Speaker 01

  And it's one of those things where, yeah, if you put numbers up on the board, it sounds good. You can claim that you took dangerous repeat criminals who would have been threats to their communities off the streets. And then if you succeed in actually killing them, you don't face the scrutiny of what you just described of whether or not they actually would live up to that potential future that's been predicted by this expert.

• 29:48Robert Evans?

  Yep.

• 29:49Speaker 03

  Sheesh.

• 29:50Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 29:50Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 29:51Robert Evans?

  So this is cool, right? We're happy. Yeah.

• 29:54Speaker 01

  Works, works as expected, right? The, the purpose of a system is what it does.

• 29:59Robert Evans?

  Right. And in this case, yeah, the system is doing exactly what the people who set it up want it to do. Dr. James Gregson in 1995 was finally drummed out of the APA for his continued insistence on diagnosing subjects without ever talking to them. The next year, the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians expelled him. In 1996, New York University psych professor, uh, Michael Weiner wrote this, "The problem with Dr. Gregson was not that inmates were placed on death row, but that he was fundamentally biased in his assessments and was performing cursory evaluations and drawing broad and damning conclusions from only limited information, a problem of credibility and objectivity."

• 30:37Robert Evans?

  And, you know, I would say, part of the problem is that people are being placed on death row based on bad evidence. But I think he's making the point that like Dr. Gregson isn't responsible for the way prosecutions work, for how bad like lying about the evidence is incentivized in these cases and stuff. He's responsible for this aspect of it, which is probably fair to say. Now, it is impossible for us to know to a point of certainty how often he was wrong. But something like 100 of the people he testified about for money were put to death, and most of those cases were never revisited. However, we do have a few more case studies on times when he was proven wrong. Back in 1986, a carpenter named David Wayne Stoker was charged with the murder of a convenience store clerk

• 31:19Robert Evans?

  north of Lubbock. Five months after the murder, a man described by prosecutors as low-life scum snitched to police that Stoker had done the murder and handed over what he claimed to be the murder weapon. Well, this low-life scum had the murder weapon and says this other guy did it. That's all I need to know. Case closed. Why would he have a bias? Right? So, Stoker did have an assault prior, and he had a drug issue, right? And was arrested in short order. Again, it's one of these like, oh, yeah, this guy doesn't have any way to fight this. Yeah, let's go after him. Like many such death penalty cases, his was dogged by poor quality representation in a system in which people like him, who are expected to be guilty, get railroaded through to a conviction. Per an article by the Death Penalty Information Center, Felty, the lead lawyer,

• 32:04Robert Evans?

  the defense attorney, and a former prosecutor, later gave up his law license in the face of disciplinary action. Felty forged the signatures of two clients on a settlement check, then pocketed the money, records show. He also pleaded guilty to felony charges for forging a judge's signature on a court order and falsifying a government document. He was sentenced to five years of community service. So, that's this guy's defense attorney. And again, not shitting on the concept of defense attorneys, but it's a major problem that a lot of these guys in particular, these are like the kind of the lowest of the low, and they benefit from the very worst service on average, right? They are very likely to get the defense attorneys who are not competent. It's, as we'll talk about, weirdly common

• 32:45Robert Evans?

  for like death penalty cases for the defense attorneys to later get disbarred for incompetence or other similar issues.

• 32:53Robert Evans?

  The guy who had snitched on Stoker claimed in court to not have been given anything for his testimony that just like, I wanted the truth to come out. I didn't get any kind of special deal. But the day he testified, charges he had for drug possession and for like possession of a firearm illegally in the next county over were dropped and he received $1,000 from Crime Stoppers as a reward for, for turning this guy in. And further documents made it clear that there had been a written quid pro quo with the DA. For one thing, that, that county didn't have a Crime Stoppers program until it was started for this by the DA and the check was sent to him by an investigator for the DA's office.

• 33:35Speaker 01

  Lovely stuff. Lovely stuff.

• 33:37Robert Evans?

  Not bribery, though. Not bribery.

• 33:39Speaker 01

  No, not, not picking cases that you think can win, even if it might not be the right guy. And certainly no shenanigans or bribery with regard to acquiring potentially suspect testimony or evidence. Not at all.

• 33:53Robert Evans?

  Absolutely not. No, that would be, that would be unethical.

• 33:56Speaker 01

  There's no gambling in this casino. That's crazy.

• 33:59Robert Evans?

  In this casino. So there's much more that reeks about this case, but things really got nasty once Dr. Grigson entered the arena. Quote, "During sentencing, the prosecutor called Dr. James P. Grigson, the psychiatrist nicknamed Dr. Death. Though Grigson never examined Stoker, he testified Stoker was a sociopath who would absolutely be violent again. With Stoker's life in the balance, Felty put on only one witness at sentencing, Stoker's mother. She testified briefly about the most superficial aspects of the Stoker family. Felty, who works as a supervisor at Home Depot, defended his work. When we went to trial, we were a hell of a lot better prepared than the DA's office, Felty said." So, not a lot of winner. He's not necessarily wrong because the DA is just lying and bribing

• 34:40Robert Evans?

  somebody. But also, when your lawyer gets disbarred for felonies and winds up working at a Home Depot, that's not a great sign in terms of the quality of representation you received.

• 34:50Speaker 01

  Yeah. The look at my lawyer, dog.

• 34:53Robert Evans?

  Look at my lawyer, doc. I'm getting executed.

• 34:56Speaker 01

  Yeah, unfortunately.

• 34:58Robert Evans?

  That is just such beautiful shade in that article, too. Just noted that he says he's working at Home Depot now. Almost kind of unnecessary, except for the point they're trying to make here. Mm hmm. It's good color. It is good color. Now, unfortunately, unlike Adams's story, this story does not end with an 11th hour stay of execution and eventual exoneration. Stoker was executed in 1997 during George W. Bush's governorship, when he pushed Texas to execute inmates at a rate not before seen in modern times. Even within the ranks of Bush appointees, though, the Stoker case was looked at as egregious. Thomas Moss had been appointed by the governor to the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and he voted to give Stoker clemency, that he only did this twice

• 35:43Robert Evans?

  in his entire career and once was with Stoker, because he was like, yeah, this is just too messy a case. This is, you know, a lot kept coming out. The local police chief eventually testified that, no, the Crime Stoppers group wasn't real. You know, we founded it expressly for this purpose, basically. A DA's investigator made the payment. And as this stuff came to light, eventually, like, the local sheriff testified that there was no direct tie between Stoker and the crime he'd been executed for committing. Now, had Stoker been put under life imprisonment, had his execution basically commuted, right, but given life imprisonment at this point, he likely would have lived long enough to get retried, right? That probably would have happened eventually, because there was just enough, you know, good evidence

• 36:27Robert Evans?

  on his side of things for this. But Dr. Grigson helped to ensure that this could not happen, right? By testifying, he would definitely kill again. One juror in the Stoker case later said, "You couldn't help but listen to what he was saying. He's a doctor. He had a lot of influence on what we decided." And several jurors later said, "Yeah, if I'd known these other facts about the case, I wouldn't have voted for the death penalty."

• 36:49Robert Evans?

  So, yeah, this guy gets executed, and a big part of why is that Grigson said he needed to be. And we can say fairly confidently that this was an innocent man who Dr. Grigson helped put to death here. Yeah. Throughout the Bush years and the bloodiest period for Texas's death row, Dr. Grigson was prolific and influential, even in cases where he personally did not testify. That Death Penalty Information Center piece discusses another psychiatrist, Dr. E. Clay Griffith, who often testified along the same lines as Dr. Grigson and had clearly built his profession in the other man's image. Like Grigson, he used a 1 to 10 scale for judging defendants and regularly went above 10 in order to make his point, as he did when reviewing the 1984 case of David Wayne Spence.

• 37:33Robert Evans?

  Now, Spence, again, was not tied to the triple homicide that he was accused of committing via any evidence, just the testimony of seven informants, all of whom had good reason to lie about what had happened. Several of these people later confessed to being fed information by investigators and being shown crime scene and autopsy photos, as well as being bribed behind bars with privileges and leniency. Like Stoker, Spence was executed in 1987, or 1997.

• 38:01Robert Evans?

  The issues we've discussed in all these cases have been proven via subsequent study to be rampant within Texas's criminal justice system, particularly death row cases. An investigation of the 131 executions during George W. Bush's time as governor showed that in at least 29 cases, the prosecution had presented testimony from a psychiatrist, often Dr. Grigson, that the defendant would commit future violence. In most of these cases, the psychiatrist had not seen or examined the defendant. Beyond the issues most relevant to Grigson, in 43 of those cases, the defendant was represented at trial by an attorney who was later disbarred or suspended. Again, I want to really go into that. 131 executions.

• 38:40Robert Evans?

  Of those, in 43 of the cases, the defendant's defense attorney was later disbarred or suspended.

• 38:48Speaker 03

  That's insane.

• 38:50Speaker 01

  Yeah. So like, he not only destroyed people's lives and got them killed, but then he also destroyed defense attorneys' careers in the process?

• 39:00Robert Evans?

  I think the point, no, this is more a broader point about the fact that most of the people on death row did not benefit from a vigorous defense. Like, you're entitled constitutionally to one, and they clearly didn't get it, right?

• 39:11Speaker 01

  I completely misunderstood. Yeah, no, that makes a lot more sense that just you're you're dealing with a very poor level of representation.

• 39:18Robert Evans?

  Right.

• 39:19Speaker 01

  Where it is clearly falling underneath the bar time and time again.

• 39:23Robert Evans?

  Yes.

• 39:23Speaker 01

  At a very large scale. Okay.

• 39:25Robert Evans?

  And part of the problem is that because in so many of these cases, at least 29, Dr. Gregson and others are testifying, you don't have these kind of checked out, defense attorneys don't have the wherewithal and often don't have the funding to properly counter the the expert that the prosecution has brought up.

• 39:42Speaker 01

  Of course.

• 39:43Robert Evans?

  They also found, this is getting into another set of pseudoscience, but I think it's worth bringing up, in 23 or more, at least of these 131 cases, the prosecution's case relied on the visual comparison of hairs, which is not real science and has now largely been banned as being wildly ineffective. One study of 62 convictions that were later cleared by DNA evidence found that in at least 18 of those cases prosecutors had used hair analysis to get the initial conviction. Wow. And this brings me to an important point, which is that while Dr. Gregson is the most colorful of these experts testifying in favor of the death penalty during this golden age of executing people in Texas, he was not the only or the most obviously fraudulent one. In their review of the role fake forensic experts play in these cases, the Death Penalty

• 40:27Robert Evans?

  Information Center also cited the case of Charles Lynch. Now, this is an expert hair analysis guy, right? And his expert hair comparison analysis was used in the cases of two people who were executed under Bush. So he helped with two executions as a result of matching hairs. And this is not a DNA match. I really need to emphasize that. He's looking at hairs and saying, oh, yeah, these hairs come from that guy. Right? Like, that's what he's literally doing.

• 40:55Speaker 01

  So I just, I just have to bring up this one bit that seems somewhat relevant to how much of a shit show Texas court systems and criminal law has been for some time. It wasn't until the past, like, five years or so, I'm trying to remember the exact year, but very recently, that hypnosis as a tool for testimony and in criminal investigations was banned.

• 41:18Robert Evans?

  So many people got convicted by on the with with that as a factor.

• 41:22Speaker 01

  Yeah. Yes, yes, someone allowed hypnotists to come in and then do hypnosis as if it were a legitimate, repeatable, scientific approach for acquiring legitimate testimony or uncovering forgotten memories or whatever that is being used for. So, yeah, I mean, that was recently, that was in this century, not last century.

• 41:46Robert Evans?

  No, it took a shocking amount of time for us to be like, no, we shouldn't be doing this.

• 41:51Speaker 03

  I mean, when did the FBI stop doing that fucking gene pattern thing where like they dismayed that FBI, that fucking shit?

• 42:00Robert Evans?

  As we've talked about it, forensic science is rife with bastardy, but I want to talk about Charles Lynch a little more. I want to read another quote from that Death penalty information center piece because it's so funny. Again, this guy's hair analysis is used in the case to execute two people. The Dallas Morning News reported that Lynch had been committed in 1994 to a psychiatric ward due to concerns about his depression and drinking. Lynch was considered an endangered himself and others, but he was temporarily released to provide incriminating hair analysis testimony against Kenneth McDuff, who was executed in 1998. The prosecution did not disclose Lynch's status to the defense, even though Lynch's residence in the psychiatric ward might have been used to challenge his credibility.

• 42:39Speaker 03

  It's incredible.

• 42:40Robert Evans?

  I don't want to, I got people who, you know, wind up in a psychiatric ward, that doesn't mean they can never do a serious job again. But if you probably shouldn't be releasing someone from a ward to testify and then putting them back in because they're a danger to themself and others, but they can definitely testify this guy needs to fry, right? That seems like a stretch.

• 43:01Speaker 01

  Listen, you gotta do what you gotta do.

• 43:03Robert Evans?

  You gotta do what you gotta do. Yeah, get this guy out. We can't let this guy have his own like fucking butter knife, but let him, let him tell this jury that a man needs to die. Like, holy shit.

• 43:13Speaker 03

  Insane.

• 43:15Robert Evans?

  That's nuts.

• 43:16Speaker 03

  That's wild.

• 43:17Robert Evans?

  Just coming across that story like, wow, it really was the wild ass west for a while, huh? You could get away with anything.

• 43:23Speaker 03

  Boy, howdy.

• 43:25Speaker 01

  Kind of still can.

• 43:26Robert Evans?

  Kind of still can, yeah. Now, another of Dr. Grigson's colleagues was Dr. Ralph Erdman, who testified in numerous capital cases until 1994, when he pled no contest to seven felonies over falsifying evidence and fucking up autopsies. He had claimed to have examined organs in decedents that had been removed in surgery before their deaths, for one thing, right? Like, in his autopsy reports, he's like, writing about the appendixes of people who had no appendix when they died. Despite claiming to be a scientist, providing his unbiased opinion, no matter who hired him, a special investigator appointed to examine Erdman found if the prosecution theory was that death was caused by a Martian death ray, then that was what Dr. Erdman reported, right? Yeah, okay. Which is, you're talking about the same thing

• 44:11Robert Evans?

  we're seeing with Dr. Grigson, right? This is a guy who's not doing science. He's coming in and he's saying like, "Yeah, based on my expertise, whatever the prosecution says is true," right? Now, because Erdman is working in autopsies, he gets caught. But there's no kind of... There's nothing to catch Dr. Grigson on, really, right? Because psychiatry is largely like, "Yeah, does the psychiatrist think this person has something?" You know, there's more rigor built that's supposed to be built into the system. But when it comes to the way these court cases are working, it's really just this guy saying, "Yeah, I'm a doctor and I say this is what's going on."

• 44:46Speaker 01

  Kind of like the medical equivalent of a mob lawyer. They're playing this role that is predefined for them and they know what they're supposed to do and they just go along with whatever the request is, whatever the need is. They'll say, "Yeah, sure, go for it." I mean, in the case of Grigson, it seems like, yeah, he may have claimed there were cases which he was not eager to do so. But I don't know, maybe he just knew how to pick a winner.

• 45:11Robert Evans?

  Maybe he knew how to pick a winner. And also, when he says, "A third of the cases I didn't take because I didn't think, you know, the person..." We don't know, there's no evidence of that.

• 45:20Speaker 01

  Sure.

• 45:20Robert Evans?

  We're just trusting this guy, you know?

• 45:23Speaker 01

  Right.

• 45:23Robert Evans?

  And I don't trust him. Now, Dr. Erdman did have to surrender his medical license. You know, Dr. Grigson never did. And we're going to talk about what else happens with Dr. Grigson. But first, let's have our second ad break. Okay.

• 45:40Robert Evans?

  This ad is brought to you by Vive Healthcare, the makers of Devoto Dolutigrevir Lamivudine. If you're living with HIV, do learn about Devoto. Devoto is a complete HIV treatment by prescription only for some people 12 and older. Your doctor will determine if Devoto is right for you. Most HIV pills contain three or four medicines. Devoto is as effective with just two. No other complete HIV pill contains fewer medicines than Devoto.

• 46:04Speaker 04

  It is unknown if Devoto is safe and effective if you have HIV and hepatitis B. If you have Hep B, don't stop Devoto without talking to your doctor, as it may get worse or harder to treat. Don't take Devoto if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking Dofetilide due to serious or life-threatening side effects. If you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop Devoto and get medical help right away. Other serious or life-threatening side effects include severe liver problems and lactic acid buildup. If you're female or obese, you may be more at risk. Tell your doctor about your medicines or supplements, medical conditions, liver or kidney problems, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or planned pregnancy.

• 46:39Robert Evans?

  Do ask your doctor about fewer medicines. Visit devoto.com or call 1-877-844-8872. History's full of dirty players. Don't let your butt be one of them. You know what bastards and buttholes both have in common? They're full of [BLEEP]. But with Dude Wipes, your butt doesn't have to be. Don't let dry TP dictate your aftermath. Dude Wipes remove what toilet paper leaves behind. Dude Wipes are the perfect poop time partner in crime at home or on the go. Flushable, plastic-free Dude Wipes are made with 99% water and plant-based ingredients. They're gentle enough for sensitive skin, but tough enough for messes of historical proportions. Unlike baby wipes, Dude Wipes are flushable and designed to begin breaking down when flushed. No battle's here.

• 47:22Robert Evans?

  They come in a range of at-home and travel-friendly formats: individually wrapped singles, eight-count pocket packs, and 48-count big daddies. So the wipe can match the crime... every time. Dude Wipes in a good World War II novel: two bathroom musts when it comes to mustering up a great number two. So stop Stalin, grab a pack of Dude Wipes, and wipe the slate clean. Dude Wipes: Best Clean Pants Down. Available at major retailers nationwide.

• 47:51Robert Evans?

  We're back. So, over the years, when he was pushed on this, he would repeatedly say, "Hey, I didn't always testify for the prosecution," right? And sometimes I just wouldn't take cases. And we can't back up the latter, but we can back up the amount of times that Dr. Grigson testified for the prosecution versus the defense. During his career, he testified in 166 capital, like, death penalty cases in Texas, and in nine of those times, he testified for the defense. So, I think it's fair to say, basically always, a prosecution witness. And, by the way, we'll talk later about what some of those other nine times would have been, because it's not like he just really thought the defense was right in that situation.

• 48:33Robert Evans?

  So, we'll get to that. During the busiest period of his career, in the 1980s, he was making $150,000 a year with this business, which was equivalent to someone making somewhere between $500,000 and $600,000 a year today, right? Wow. Like, he is making fucking bank in the 80s. That 1990 Vanity Fair piece finds him at close to the peak of his career and his sense of impunity over what he was allowed to do. In thousands of words of recorded conversations, he refers to his colleagues in psychiatry as "liberal fools," and seems to take a great degree of joy and, like, righteous pleasure in getting people executed. His stated goal to the journalist in that article is that he wants to execute, like, three people in three days, basically, something

• 49:15Robert Evans?

  like that, and break his personal record for most death penalty convictions scored in a short window of time. One of these cases was the case of Galen Bradford, who definitely shot and killed a security guard during a robbery. This is recorded on video. There's not doubt about whether or not he committed a murder. But, once he wasn't in bars, the jail tested his IQ and found it to be 68. The defense psychologist who examined him said it was 75. Either of those, and again, I have my issues with IQ, but this isn't the place to really bring it up. The point is that, based on the way the system works, either of those findings could be low enough to count as diminished capacity and spare him the death penalty, right? For sure. Both of those are potentially low enough to do so. For sure.

• 49:57Robert Evans?

  So during a dinner after winning his first two cases, but before the Bradford case, this is like the night before he testifies in this guy's case, Dr. Grigson, while hanging out with Rosenbaum, that journalist, gets hammered. He has like four martinis in an hour, like celebrating that he's gotten two people killed. And then he winds up hungover in court the next morning. And he kind of fucks up his testimony in the Bradford case a little because he doesn't just say Bradford is a sociopath, but he also insists he's of normal intelligence. I can tell. He wasn't even being asked this, but he's like, I know he's of normal intelligence. And I'll guarantee you, he's killed more than once. We just didn't catch him. Right? And then he tells the jury, based on nothing, literally nothing, Galen Bradford is one of the most dangerous killers I've ever examined or come into contact with.

• 50:41Robert Evans?

  Right? And again, there's not any evidence of this. And he certainly did not do anything that would allow him to determine whether or not this guy was competent to stand trial. He just does not do that work. And in this one instance, the defense attorney calls him out on it and questions like, well, based on what aspects of Dr. Bradford's personality, since you have not talked to him, have you concluded all of this? That he killed someone before and is hiding it? And Dr. Grigson, ultimately, the only specific thing he cites is that the guy has a weird haircut with a lightning bolt in it. And the defense attorney, first off, holy shit. The defense attorney, Paul Broccoli, responds, pretty good reason

• 51:22Robert Evans?

  to kill him, right? And there's like this silence in the courtroom. I'm going to quote from that Vanity Fair piece, "The doctor himself was speechless for a moment, something I'd never seen before. Then lamely, plaintively, he volunteered, well, I'd never seen a haircut like that." Great medical science.

• 51:40Speaker 01

  Did you say the defense attorney's name was Paul Broccoli?

• 51:43Robert Evans?

  Yeah, B R A U C H L E. I don't know how else it would be pronounced.

• 51:48Speaker 01

  Okay, if I had a different spelling in my head, it's still really funny to think.

• 51:52Robert Evans?

  Broicle, maybe? I don't know. I'm calling it Broccoli. Go Broccoli, go Broccoli. Yeah, I'm going with Broccoli.

• 51:58Speaker 01

  Yeah, for the justification to be, this guy looks fucking weird. I don't like him.

• 52:02Robert Evans?

  Look at his fucked up hair. Yeah, he's definitely criminally insane. Wow. Yeah. Now, the bad news is, again, this guy still gets convicted. James Grigson in no way pays for his crimes. The best I can say is that his career does take a hit in the late 1990s, in part as the result of the fallout from the Adams case, and in part out of the fact that he has now been drummed out of every professional organization in his field. Now, another reason why he stops testifying as often is that some of the savvier Texas defense attorneys develop a strategy for mitigating the harm he could cause. Per an article by Mike Tolson for the Houston Chronicle, "Defense attorneys fearful of the effect of Grigson's testimony began to call him and discuss their clients, with the result being that Grigson could not be hired

• 52:46Robert Evans?

  by the state in those cases." I love this shit. Like, well, look, if this guy's talked about this case before being brought on, he can't testify, so let's just call him and talk about it. And then we know he's fucked. It's very funny stuff. Grigson eventually like figures out what's going on, and he gets angry because this is costing him money. So several defense attorneys agree to like, "Hey, what if we just pay you as a consultant as soon as we think you have a case you might get involved in? And that way, you don't have to do anything. You're not going to actually testify. You're not going to do any work for the defense usually. But once we're hiring you, the prosecution can't hire you, right? And he's okay with this because he's still getting paid.

• 53:30Robert Evans?

  This snowballs into prosecutors adopting a similar tactic out of fear that he might show up and help the defense. So he starts getting hired to not work as long as like one side can lock him down first. Like, he spends kind of the latter chunk of his career doing this, like getting paid to not do his job. And, you know, eventually, this practice dies out during the 2000s, particularly, the practice of bringing in forensic psychiatrists like Dr. Grigson declines in popularity, the kind of late 90s, early 2000s. And there's, there's several reasons for this, but a big one is the constant professional animus that Grigson and others who followed his example, like, started to get, right? Like, this has just kind of been poisoned as a field. Now, another reason that's less optimistic

• 54:15Robert Evans?

  for why this dies out is that prosecutors realize, "We don't need to spend money on these guys. Texas juries love killing people, right? Like, you don't actually need this guy to testify to convince them that someone needs to die, right? You know, like, you could usually just kind of talk them into it. Which is less optimistic.

• 54:32Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 54:33Robert Evans?

  Yeah. That's that's less fun. Um, so in 2003, Dr. James Grigson, a lifetime chain smoker, was diagnosed with lung cancer. In one of his last interviews, he told a reporter he had zero regrets about his life or career. He insisted he had just been there as a medical professional, separating the truly ill from the fakers who needed to be locked up and executed. By the end of his career, he was just working in civil law. But after his death in 2004, a number of experts came out to state that his impact on the legal system had been far reaching. Cynthia Orr, president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, told The Chronicle, "He had a tremendous impact on Texas death penalty litigation. He really provided ammunition to the state to try and establish one's future dangerousness, when ordinarily it would have been pretty tough to do.

• 55:18Robert Evans?

  He was willing to go further than anyone else."

• 55:20Speaker 01

  Hmm.

• 55:21Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 55:22Speaker 03

  So horrible.

• 55:23Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 55:23Speaker 01

  And he ended up just getting to chill.

• 55:26Robert Evans?

  Just getting to chill. Yep.

• 55:28Speaker 01

  And get paid to not work.

• 55:29Robert Evans?

  Get paid to not work. Nice retirement.

• 55:32Speaker 01

  Hate to say it, kind of a dudes rock moment, but.

• 55:35Robert Evans?

  Yeah. It is the dream, right?

• 55:37Speaker 03

  He got to die of lung cancer, so that's, you know.

• 55:40Robert Evans?

  He does die of lung cancer on June 3 of 2004, after what his family described as 72 great years.

• 55:48Speaker 01

  All right.

• 55:49Robert Evans?

  Yeah, alas. Now, the nature of the death penalty and the time it involved clearing such cases meant that a lot of people that he had helped to put there remained on death row after his death. And in fact, the most recent case I can find of someone he put there, like having, you know, basically winding up in the news is in 2016, Jeffrey Wood, age 43,

• 56:13Robert Evans?

  was like scheduled, he was supposed to be executed in 2016 over a 1996 robbery in which a man was murdered. Grigson had testified against him and stated that Wood would be violent in the future. And he obviously did not examine Wood. Now, Wood had never actually murdered in the first place. He didn't fire the gun in the 1966, 96 robbery that he was being executed for, right? But obviously accomplices, he was like driving the car, can be convicted of murder. But still, like the fact that he's saying he'll definitely kill again. Well, he never killed in the first place, right? Not like, not really. Um, so Wood was supposed to be executed in 2016. The actual gunman was executed in 2002. Um, but Wood's case, like

• 56:56Robert Evans?

  his execution was stayed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals because of Dr. Gregson, right? Because he had been part of getting the guy on death row. Uh, and the fact that he has been so burned, like convinced the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2016, like, yeah, we probably shouldn't execute this guy, right? Um, so the court ruled seven to two to stay the execution. And, uh, yeah, that just, you know, this guy's impact outlasted him. Um, but it is, it is kind of at least nice that now he is so, he's been so discredited that in 2016, a court voted seven to two that like, yeah, we can't execute a guy based on this dude's testimony. Um, so at least he's completely discredited.

• 57:39Speaker 03

  And dead.

• 57:41Robert Evans?

  And dead.

• 57:41Speaker 01

  Yeah. And, and dead. He innovated in the field, uh, rode the wave.

• 57:46Robert Evans?

  Mm hmm.

• 57:47Speaker 01

  And died before it became fully discredited. Um, sorry to say, but yeah, he's, he's at least dead.

• 57:54Robert Evans?

  He's at least dead. Yeah.

• 57:56Speaker 01

  Yeah. Yeah. I'm just glad to hear that we no longer have legal hypnosis as a form of testimony and that, um,

• 58:03Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 58:03Speaker 01

  quacks like this guy are, are not being taken seriously anymore. So I guess there's a silver lining, like you said.

• 58:09Robert Evans?

  Yep. Things are good forever now. Uh, we figured out how to not do bad stuff with executing people and there's no more, longer any problems with death row or capital crimes at all. It's all good now.

• 58:22Speaker 01

  Don't need to worry about it, kittens. It's all good.

• 58:24Robert Evans?

  Don't look into it. Don't look into it. Yeah. Um, you got anything to plug, uh, at the end here, Stephen?

• 58:30Speaker 01

  You know, just follow me on Blue Sky, or I don't post on Twitter anymore, so don't, don't go there.

• 58:36Robert Evans?

  That's good. Yeah, bad to post on Twitter.

• 58:38Speaker 01

  I'm writing for a few different outlets, The Barbed Wire, Texas Observer, just had something in MSNBC.

• 58:46Robert Evans?

  Hell, yeah.

• 58:46Speaker 01

  I post all that on Blue Sky. It's probably the easiest way to follow my shit, so go there, or go read the literary magazine I publish, Prodyne Magazine. It's got some good shit in it.

• 58:54Robert Evans?

  Yes, Prodyne has a lot of good shit in it. Stephen, you can also find on It Could Happen Here from time to time, talking about Texas, which continues to be one of the most important subjects in the country. What, why is Texas the way it is? What's going on there? Yeah, like, it's, it's, it was happening there before it's happening wherever you are, odds are.

• 59:16Speaker 01

  It's, it's been happening.

• 59:18Robert Evans?

  It's been happening.

• 59:19Speaker 01

  Do be happening still. And yeah, if we can figure out what the fuck's going on here, I feel like we could figure out a lot. So, working on it.

• 59:28Robert Evans?

  Well, this has been Behind the Bastards, and you have been listening to a podcast. Shame on you.

• 59:38Speaker 03

  Behind the Bastards is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzonemedia.com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Behind the Bastards is now available on YouTube. New episodes every Wednesday and Friday. Subscribe to our channel, youtube.com/behindthebastards.

• 1:00:03Robert Evans?

  Dude wipes remove what toilet paper leaves behind. Flushable, plastic-free dude wipes are made with 99% water and plant-based ingredients. They're gentle enough for sensitive skin, but tough enough for methods of historical proportions. Unlike baby wipes, dude wipes are flushable and designed to begin breaking down when flushed. No battles there. They come in a range of at-home and travel-friendly formats, from individually wrapped singles to 48-count big daddies. Don't let skids be your lasting legacy. Grab a dude wipe and destroy the evidence. Dude wipes, best clean, pants down, available at major retailers nationwide.

• 1:00:35Speaker 05

  Honestly? Honestly? Honestly, no one wants to think about HIV, but there are things that everyone can do to help prevent it. Things like PrEP. PrEP stands for pre-exposure prophylaxis, and it means routinely taking prescription medicine before you're exposed to HIV to help reduce your chances of getting it. PrEP can be about 99% effective when taken as prescribed. It doesn't protect against other STIs, though, so be sure to use condoms and other healthy sex practices. Ask a healthcare provider about all your prevention options, and visit findoutaboutprep.com to learn more. Sponsored by Gilead.

• 1:01:05Speaker 06

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:01:36Speaker 07

  This January, bare-knuckle fighting championship takes over the ocean. The inaugural Brew's Crew sails from Miami to the Bahamas aboard the Norwegian Jewel. Three straight days with pool-decked bare-knuckle fights in the Caribbean. Mess of parties, beach events, DJs, cigars, tequila tastings, and non-stop action. The lineup reveals coming soon. Cabins are disappearing fast, and the prices won't stay this low. Reserve your spot with just $200 down at bkfsea.com.

• 1:02:06Speaker 02

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.