The Mayor of Castro Street

[dejavu]

Jenny, I really appreciate you elaborating on the King Lear quote in your big reply.  So much of what you say relates to that one phrase, "change places."  I knew, when I was writing my own reply, that there was something along those lines going on, but it was just a big fuzzy cloud in my mind that I couldn't get a handle on.  Thanks for being able to put all of that into words.

[dejavu]

17.)  Shilts says Dan White acted like a zombie or robot in the courtroom - and didn't give any sign of recognition to his wife.  Do you think that this attitude was intentional and advised by his lawyer to support the manic-depressive defense of Schmidt - or do you think that he was truly incapacitated?

Considering just the trial information, I thought that White’s robotic appearance in the courtroom was either intentional, or a legitimately depressed reaction to the prospect of facing the death penalty.  I noticed how White broke down and cried when the lesser verdict was announced – the normal reaction, IMO, of a person whose life had just been spared.  At that point, he was either genuinely relieved, and therefore his depression legitimately lifted; or, if he had been faking his roboticism, he dropped the pretense at that time.

I just found a paragraph in the book which I think is important.  On p. 312, it says Carl Carlson ran into White outside the courtroom, and noticed that White's eyes were no longer zombielike; they were now, "cold, steely, and calculated."  This suggests that White was actually faking his robotism to suggest that his mental state was incapacitated, whereas it actually wasn't.

The evidence presented about the day of the killings – how White climbed in the window, reloaded his gun, and so on – seemed to portray someone who was acting in a methodical and premeditated fashion, who did not appear incapacitated.  If White could premeditate those actions on the day of the murders, he probably had the capacity to intentionally act in a prescribed fashion in the courtroom:  avoiding looking at his wife, walking stiffly, staring at the floor, etc.  So, if it wasn’t temporary depression due to the prospect of facing the death sentence, he could have been faking.

The only thing that bothers me about this analysis is that, from the time White first went to work as a supervisor, his colleagues noted that he acted like a zombie at times.  In that case, some of his robotic behavior may have been ingrained, and the result of some sort of psychological or emotional disorder.  At other times, while working as a supervisor, he had seemed to interact normally with Harvey and others.  So it’s possible that the robotic behavior manifested itself only at times of stress.  The trial would be a very stressful time.  Some previously existing tendency toward depression could have been triggered by this stress, resulting in the zombie-like behavior in court – even without any coaching from his lawyer. 

Another possibility is that Defense Attorney Schmidt may have taken advantage of some psychiatric interviews which had been done with White.  Schmidt may have been able to predict that White would react like a zombie under the stressful trial conditions, and therefore tailored his defense argument to make it sound like White had a more serious mental illness than he really did – something serious enough to account for why he would kill two people.

I would note, at this point, that there was apparently no thought given by the jury to finding White “not guilty by reason of insanity” (if that is an allowed verdict in California).  The defense’s failure to lead jurors in this direction makes me wonder how seriously the defense really believed the argument about White being incapacitated.

After finally finding that observation from Carl Carlson, about how White stopped acting like a zombie once he got into the hallway outside the courtroom (as though he was on break from being a zombie), it's pretty clear to me that Dan White had the ability to turn his appearance of being incapacitated on and off.  He may have had other reasons for seeming like a zombie on his supervisor's job, but at the trial, I now think it was intentional, and therefore coached by the lawyer.

[Jenny]

I really don't doubt that Dan White was seriously depressed (by which I mean that he was depressed enough that it affected his ability to function and probably did trigger suicidal and homicidal thoughts and, eventually, actions.) He might have been manic-depressive, but I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude this, and I believe the psychiatrists who evaluated him diagnosed him as depressed at the time (unless I missed something in the book?)

 Based on what Shilts reports, if I was evaluating him just prior to the murders I would probably recommend a brief inpatient stay where he could be evaluated for medication and kept from harming self or others. I would be concerned about his earlier history as well, particularly his overinvestment in winning any competitive event he engaged in, his tantrums in response to negative results and his black-and-white view of the world, which caused him to see frustration of his aims as due to the stupidity, ignorance and/or malevolence of others. We have a saying in the business: Personality (or genes) load the gun, life experience determines whether you'll fire it. White's lack of success as a supervisor, the shame and self-loathing he felt when he was criticized by constituents and by his "brothers in blue", his financial struggles, which may well have caused him to feel he was failing as a man and, possibly, his internal conflict with his own homosexual desires (though I don't see enough evidence of this to strongly support those suspicions) triggered feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. This man worked hard to control himself and repress doubts about himself (which, IMO, contributed to his physical stiffness and lack of expression). I don't think Schmidt manipulated this behavior. The stress he experienced triggered depression. Depression leads to tunnel vision; the deeply depressed person can't see a range of options. He can't even remember positive feelings and experiences well, but all the negative ones surface and replay in his mind, over and over.

All of that said, I don't think he was delusional or hearing voices or unable to tell right from wrong. I think his depression had started to lift after he resigned and then received a lot of feedback that he had been playing an essential role in stopping votes that would have led to bad consequences and greater immorality in the city. He needed to return. It gave him a mission, and he believed he could complete it successfully. And then, once more, his enemies on the board, particularly Harvey Milk, fought against him and won. The mayor changed his mind and treated him disrespectfully by not telling him before the press picked it up. He became angry and determined that the only way he could get his revenge and fulfill his mission was to execute those he felt were responsible for his defeat, then kill himself. That would settle things once and for all. So he figured out how to get into City Hall with a gun, took enough ammunition to fatally shoot all of his chosen victims, called his aide to drive him there and carried out the murders. They were premeditated and carried out in cold blood. He might have gone to shoot others, had he not been detected. He had intended to kill himself as well, but he couldn't bring himself to do it and I think he wanted to control the circumstances of his surrender. So he evaded capture until he could walk into the precinct of his choice. Depression and stress do not mitigate a person's responsibility for planning and carrying out murder. Mr. White was guilty as charged.

[dejavu]

18.)  The prosecution played a tape of Dan White's interrogation.  Was this a major error?  What do you make of White's whining in regard to Milk?  Why do you think the police officer interrupted White when he was discussing what could have indicated premeditation in the case?  Do you think that, given the crying of the jurors and Mary Ann White that the prosecution should have known they were in trouble?  Why do you think the prosecution allowed Falzon to become a character witness for White?

IMO, playing the tape of the interrogation was a major error, because it was a poor interrogation by police officer Frank Falzon.  As Falzon said to White on the tape, normally he would ask questions of a suspect, but instead he offered White the chance to state his case in the form of a narrative.  White was allowed to ramble into areas that made the jurors feel sorry for him.  Two things were wrong with the tape, actually:  one, as a former police officer, White knew how to manipulate a confession to gain sympathy from a jury.  And two, since White was a former police officer who had long been friendly with Falzon, Falzon probably sympathized with White and led White away from making incriminating statements.  I think that’s why Falzon interrupted White just before he mentioned anything that could have indicated premeditation, and interrupted again before he could describe the shooting.  Given that tape to work with, prosecuting attorney Norman would have been better off to conduct his own proper questioning of White on the witness stand.

As for White’s whining about Milk, I thought White was trying to paint himself as the good guy (“honest”) and Milk and his cronies as the bad guys (“devious”).  The closest he came to stating his motivation was to say that Milk “just kind of smirked at me as if to say, too bad and then I just got all flushed and hot and I shot him.”  Although this might have indicated to some jurors that White shot Milk for no reason, the idea of Harvey smirking at White may have stirred up jury resentment that a gay man would treat a fine upstanding family man like Harvey with such disrespect.  The words may have appealed to any homophobia among the jurors, too.  The crying which resulted from hearing this confession should have told the prosecution that they were in trouble. 

Perhaps the prosecution’s case still could have been saved after the tape was played, if Norman had questioned Falzon as Shilts suggests he should have: pointing out that his “glowing testimony” about White that he gave under cross-examination could have been influenced by his long friendship with White.  But again, it may have been too late, by then.  Bringing Falzon to the witness stand at all, as a witness for the prosecution, allowed Schmidt to cross-examine Falzon at length, which had the effect of making Falzon a character witness for White.  The only way I see that Falzon could have been prevented from becoming a character witness for White would have been to not call him at all as a witness.  This also would have prevented the tape from being heard in court.  I suspect that the prosecution failed to think out the implications of the tape and the cross-examination ahead of time, and that Norman thought the confession would convince the jurors of White’s guilt.  In that case, it was just poor strategy. 

[dejavu]

Once again, Jenny, a brilliant analysis of Dan White's mental state both before the murders, at the time of the murders, and during the trial.  You give some good reasons for why White had enough going against him that he didn't have to be coached in order to seem depressed. 

I'm puzzled about Carl Carlson's observation regarding White's eyes, though, in that case.  Do you think just the relief from being in the hallway outside the courtroom (where stress was much less), rather than being inside the courtroom (where the stress level was much higher), could have changed White's demeanor (especially the eyes) that much?  Maybe so.

[Jenny]

 It may have been that he felt enough anger at Carl Carlson to have it break through. It was just after Carlson's testimony against him that he saw Carlson in the corridor. Dan's zombie-like behavior was used by him to keep him from making angry outbursts or self-justifying statements, as well as to keep him from breaking down because of fear and/or self-pity, IMO. He had to keep himself under control in court in a way he didn't have to in the corridor. The stiffness and expressionless demeanor was something he had shown much earlier; I don't think it was a sign of his depression as much as a mechanism he used to repress other responses and control his feelings and impulses. I'm pretty sure that Schmidt told him he mustn't react to statements the prosecutor or his witnesses might make, and that Dan was determined to meet his fate calmly and with dignity, without showing any unmanly fear. Frankly, I think he didn't look at his wife for fear that he might break down.

The confession tape was a great advantage for Schmidt because he could show the jury a broken down Dan White just after the murders, whose statements did not portray him as enraged, and they could see a man who was controlling himself in the courtroom. He also got Falzon on the stand without calling him as a defense witness, which would have allowed the prosecutor to suggest and the jury to consider that the interrogation of White was conducted by an old friend and that he was helping White make the best possible case for himself. Norman didn't have to play the tape; defense had conceded that White shot Moscone and Milk, and it was known he had confessed. It was more than likely that Schmidt would have played it to show White's state of mind and bolster his case that the killings were impulsive. He could have brought up aspects that would do his case good by cross-examining Falzon when he was called as a defense witness, or called him himself. 

[dejavu]

Jenny, that's a good point about the expressionless demeanor being a way for White to keep himself in control of his emotions.

I had just found this reference and was going to add these thoughts to my above post, but since you posted in the meantime, I will post them here instead.

And, still related to Question 17, I just came across another reference to White's state of mind during the days of the trial.  On page 315, Shilts talks about Undersheriff Jim Denman observing that White never showed any emotion over the killings, "beyond his daily transformation into an automaton for his court appearances."  Denman had the opportunity to watch White while he wasn't in the courtroom, and felt that his demeaner changed prior to a courtroom appearance.  I guess stress could account for this, too, if it wasn't an intentional act. 

This daily transformation into an automaton could still be White's method of preparing himself to be stolid and not break down in the courtroom, as you say.

[dejavu]

19.)  Does Warren Hinkle's notion that homophobia should have been central to the prosecution seem accurate to you?  Does the information that Denman gave, that White had been treated almost as a hero while in jail and showed no remorse, support the notion that even if there wasn't a conspiracy that Dan White's murders were supported by the police?  What do you think of Denman's notion of the nuanced support that Dan White felt?  Why do you think the Chronicle wouldn't run Warren Hinkle's story?

Hinckle had good reason to theorize that homophobia was central to White’s motives, because Hinckle was familiar with working-class complaints about “the gay invasion” into their area.  Hinckle felt that the assassinations were “Dan White’s Final Solution for the Homosexual Problem in San Francisco,” in Shilts’ words.  Enough evidence has been presented earlier in the book about the homophobia of the working class Irish, to support the notion that they might be happy if Milk were eliminated.  But I question whether White was thinking in broad enough terms to actually suppose that he could solve the city’s “gay problems” by killing Milk and Moscone.  I think he acted out of malice driven by his personal circumstances:  his resentment at being prevented from getting his supervisor’s job back.

The information given by Jim Denman about White being treated almost as a hero and “patted on the ass” by other cops does show that the police supported the murders, at least after-the-fact.  In my mind, it still shows no evidence that White was part of a planned, overt conspiracy.  I agree with Denman’s suggestion that the police didn’t have to order White to kill Milk and Moscone, but that White could have picked up on enough “nuances of police subculture” to know that he would be a hero if he did kill them.   We have seen examples of what might fit Denman’s idea of a “covert, even unconscious conspiracy.”  These examples would include the graffiti asking, Who’s gonna get the mayor.  They could also include the police harassment of gays, and maybe even negative comments by police about Harvey Milk in particular which White had picked up on while they both served at City Hall.

It could be that the Chronicle failed to run Hinckle’s story because they didn’t want to bias the jury, as the newspaper stated.  But since the story centered on an apparent error by the D.A. in not calling a prime witness, I wonder if there wasn’t more to it.  Frank Falzon never should have been called by the prosecution; Jim Denman should have been.  This sounds like perhaps the prosecution was attempting to go easy on White, despite its outward appearance of toughness which it projected by seeking the death penalty.  Were political reasons to blame?  The D.A. was in trouble for his association with Jim Jones.  Did he not want to achieve a successful conviction of White on first-degree murder charges, after all, because of the backlash that might result from the public, which had come to sympathize with White?  If this was the case, the Chronicle might have had some political connections of its own which were sufficient to dissuade it from pointing out the flaws in the prosecution strategy. 

I have to add that the last part of the above paragraph is all guesswork; it’s unclear to me what the ramifications were of the the D.A.’s connection to Jim Jones.   

[dejavu]

20.)  In the defense of Dan White, his carrying extra rounds of ammunition was put down to being a 'security blanket', that he didn't want to embarrass a cop and that's why he crawled through the window.  He bought up homosexuality at every turn and even asked Carol Ruth Silver if she was gay.  Do you think that these maneuvers allowed the defense to make White look like the victim and portrayed Milk and Moscone as 'the bad guys' as Hinkle suggests?  Why do you think these maneuvers went unchallenged by the prosecution?

Carrying a revolver and extra rounds of ammunition as a “security blanket” … stupid excuse.  Why did Dan White think he might need to defend himself inside City Hall?  Why did he feel threatened there?

Crawling through a window with a loaded gun in order not to embarrass a cop … another stupid excuse.  Why did the psychiatrist commend White for taking special considerations not to hurt other people’s feelings, as a result of this action?  Would the cop have had his feelings hurt if he had had to search White after the metal detector at the main door went off?

These two points by the defense sound like nonsense to me, and should have been challenged by the prosecution, if the prosecution had any desire to get justice for the murder victims.  I’m back to thinking again (as at the end of Question 19) that the prosecution was holding back for some reason and didn’t really want a conviction on the first-degree murder charges.  However, these two points didn’t even make White look  like a victim and portray Milk and Moscone as the bad guys, IMO, unless the jurors were very naïve as to what actually went on in City Hall.  City Hall may have been the location of political corruption, but it wasn’t the site of violence – by anyone other than Dan White.  As I said, these two points involving White’s weapons just sound like nonsense.

The way the defense brought up homosexuality and asked Carol Ruth Silver if she was gay only made White look like a victim if it appealed to the jurors’ own homophobia.  I can understand how this type of questioning reminded the jurors that Harvey Milk, the person White killed, was gay – in some cases, Milk’s homosexuality was directly referred to, as during the questioning of Carl Carlson.  For these jurors, that might have been enough to paint Milk as a “bad guy.”  If not painting Milk as a bad guy, these questions were at least attempting to devalue Milk’s life, and therefore lessen White’s crime.  This line of questioning involving homosexuality didn’t directly reference Moscone, but might have painted him as a “bad guy” by association, since he had become an ally of Milk’s and had signed the gay rights bill, for example.  I think the prosecution should have objected to some of these questions, on the grounds that they were irrelevant and an attempt to bias the jury.

[Nikki]

16.)  Schmidt asked potential jurors if they supported gay rights.  A heterosexual woman with gay friends was disqualified from the jury. He asked about church attendance.  Do you think he would have been able to do this today?  Do you think this unfairly tipped the jury?  Do you think that prosecutor Tom Norman should have used more of his challenges?

I don't think he would have been able to do this today.  I was on the jury 3x in Phila, and nothing liked this was asked -- we filled out a questionaire with job info, and nothing as personal as gay related topics. Both attorneys have a number of premptory challenges -- did they then? If so the DA should have used his callenges.

In the voir dire phase of the trial,  if Schmidt had asked these questions then or now it would certainly have tipped off the jury, but then most of the potential jurors had to know about the trial from the media coverage in SF.

[Nikki]

I really don't doubt that Dan White was seriously depressed (by which I mean that he was depressed enough that it affected his ability to function and probably did trigger suicidal and homicidal thoughts and, eventually, actions.) He might have been manic-depressive, but I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude this, and I believe the psychiatrists who evaluated him diagnosed him as depressed at the time (unless I missed something in the book?)

 Based on what Shilts reports, if I was evaluating him just prior to the murders I would probably recommend a brief inpatient stay where he could be evaluated for medication and kept from harming self or others. I would be concerned about his earlier history as well, particularly his overinvestment in winning any competitive event he engaged in, his tantrums in response to negative results and his black-and-white view of the world, which caused him to see frustration of his aims as due to the stupidity, ignorance and/or malevolence of others. We have a saying in the business: Personality (or genes) load the gun, life experience determines whether you'll fire it. White's lack of success as a supervisor, the shame and self-loathing he felt when he was criticized by constituents and by his "brothers in blue", his financial struggles, which may well have caused him to feel he was failing as a man and, possibly, his internal conflict with his own homosexual desires (though I don't see enough evidence of this to strongly support those suspicions) triggered feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. This man worked hard to control himself and repress doubts about himself (which, IMO, contributed to his physical stiffness and lack of expression). I don't think Schmidt manipulated this behavior. The stress he experienced triggered depression. Depression leads to tunnel vision; the deeply depressed person can't see a range of options. He can't even remember positive feelings and experiences well, but all the negative ones surface and replay in his mind, over and over.

All of that said, I don't think he was delusional or hearing voices or unable to tell right from wrong. I think his depression had started to lift after he resigned and then received a lot of feedback that he had been playing an essential role in stopping votes that would have led to bad consequences and greater immorality in the city. He needed to return. It gave him a mission, and he believed he could complete it successfully. And then, once more, his enemies on the board, particularly Harvey Milk, fought against him and won. The mayor changed his mind and treated him disrespectfully by not telling him before the press picked it up. He became angry and determined that the only way he could get his revenge and fulfill his mission was to execute those he felt were responsible for his defeat, then kill himself. That would settle things once and for all. So he figured out how to get into City Hall with a gun, took enough ammunition to fatally shoot all of his chosen victims, called his aide to drive him there and carried out the murders. They were premeditated and carried out in cold blood. He might have gone to shoot others, had he not been detected. He had intended to kill himself as well, but he couldn't bring himself to do it and I think he wanted to control the circumstances of his surrender. So he evaded capture until he could walk into the precinct of his choice. Depression and stress do not mitigate a person's responsibility for planning and carrying out murder. Mr. White was guilty as charged.

I don't remember the bit about depression in the book, Jenny.  I think the zombie bit was an act, either suggested by his attorney, or on his own.  Sections of the book describe him as 'normal' when he's not in public view.  I never thought he was depressed to the extent that he was mentally impaired.  I think he was an angry, homophobic, zealot who wanted to get even with Moscone for refusing to reinstate him to the Board, and while he was murdering Moscone he took out Milk who represented everything he despised.

[Nikki]

19.) Does Warren Hinkle's notion that homophobia should have been central to the prosecution seem accurate to you?  Does the information that Denman gave, that white had been treated almost as a hero while in jail and showed no remorse support the notion that even if there wasn't a conspiracy that Dan White's murders were supported by the police?  What do you think of Denman's notion of the nuanced support that Dan White felt?  Why do you think the Chronicle wouldn't run Warren Hinkle's story?

It does to me.  Shilts makes a good case for it from the POV of White, "Kill the queer  and the queer-lover and turn the city to the right."  This may have been too crude to publish, but it resonated with White's feelings about Moscone and Milk.

According to Denman, the police treated White like a hero, the pats on the ass, the joking and smiling about the killings. Even if the murders were not part of a police conspiracy, they were certainly treated with a wink and a nod.

White showed no regret or emotion beyond his daily "transformation into an automaton for his court appearances." This sort of belies the fact that White was in depression.  I think it's too bad Denman couldn't testify for the prosecution. 

The 'Chronicle' wasn't about to stick its neck out and publish Hinkle's story. Their "didn't want to bias the jury argument" falls short in the light of Hinkle's argument that the sequestered jury had their newspapers censored  for that reason.  I wondered if the 'Chronicle's' reluctance concerned politics, i.e., who was the owner/publisher; was he in cahoots with City Hall, or someone to whom the 'Chronicle' was financially beholden; and finally how did the 'Chronicle' feel about a free press?

[Nikki]

22.)  When Cleve Jones attempted to get the attention of the police concerning the level of anger in the gay community and the possibility of a violent reaction the police were bemused.  Given that they had already faced an angry crowd in the Castro on May 12th, why do you think they ignored him?  Do you think they simply didn't believe that gay men could pose a threat or danger?

The cops considered Jones a toothless tiger, and treated him like a child.  Ok, Cleve .... get your bullhorn...you can march them down to City Hall like you always have and you can have a rally.  The police captain did everything but pat Jones on the head.  Seems like the police "thought homosexuals were far too responsible to do anything so troublesome as riot."  I doubt the response would have been the same had Harvey been alive, banged on the desk, and threaten to riot!

[dejavu]

21.)  Former supporters of Dan White suggest that he had forsaken his district and that he was in the pocket of the police and real estate interests.  Why don't you think this information was used to refute the notion that White was widely loved in his district and was an honorable civil servant? Do you simply think that the D.A.'s office was inefficient or sloppy?

Dan White made his case in his taped confession and in psychiatric interviews, claiming that his constituents supported him and adding that 1,100 letters of support were delivered to the mayor on the morning of the shooting.  There seems to be enough evidence that this was not the case, that the prosecution could have presented a different image of White.  People like Goldie Judge, who had urged Moscone not to reappoint White, had a different opinion of him, and spoke for other people in District 8.  Someone else reportedly saw White at a Xerox machine in City Hall, photocopying many of his “letters of support.”

At a minimum, the D.A.’s office was sloppy for not trying harder to refute White’s “good guy” image.  But politics may have played into the manner and enthusiasm of the prosecution, once again.  Many people in White’s district had come to feel that White had become an instrument of police and real estate interests, rather than an instrument of the neighborhood interests which he had been elected to serve.  But the city government, including both new Mayor Feinstein and D.A. Freitas, probably needed the support of the police and real estate interests, especially since Freitas would soon be facing a re-election bid.  It could be that the D.A.’s office didn’t want to offend the people with power by presenting White’s alignment with their interests in a negative light.  On the other hand, the victims, Milk and Moscone, no longer had any political power to offer.

[Nikki]

 

23.)  After the verdict Cleve Jones said 'This means in America, it's all right to kill faggots.'  What are your thoughts regarding this sentiment?  Do you think much changed between the times of Harvey Milk and that of Matthew  Shepard?  Do you agree with Harry Britt that homophobia had to do with the verdict?  What should we make of the overheard 'Danny Boy' Francis Moriarty heard over the police broadcast?

I understand what Jones meant.  The trial was a farce; the verdict should have been murder.  White was angry at Moscone primarily because Moscone would not reappoint him to the board. However, homophobia certainly played a part in White's murder of Harvey.  White's remarks about gays and his backgound were certainly factors in his action. 

It's pretty obvious what the police broadcast of 'Danny Boy' meant. The song, a beloved Irish melody, was the police department's paean to White. 

There have been some changes between Harvey's time and Matthew Shepard.  Shepard's killers received life sentences; one, life without parole.  OTOH there was an issue of the 'gay panic defense,' and effects of drugs -- like the Twinkie Defense. I don't remember if Wyoming now has a hate crimes law. I do remember the sadest thing was that the only clean place on Matthew Shepard's face was  where the tears washed away the blood. Maybe the difference is that these days murderers wouldn't get off on a 'Twinkie Defense,' and the prosecution would not be such a smacked ass.