The report on John Gregory Lambros submitted by the Federal Medical Center, Rochester, [FMC Rochester] notes and dismisses the evaluator's original diagnoses. The reason for this change is obvious; John Lambros does not act like a psychotic person is expected to act. On the contrary, he appears completely controlled.
Dr. Hicks said Mr. Lambros "presented" in a "rational coherent and organized manner," and was "less invested in portraying mental illness symptomatology." The statement implies that Mr. Lambros had been more "invested" in portraying mental illness symptomatology. There is, however, no appraisal of Mr. Lambros' prior investment. Specifically, Mr. Lambros never said he was ill, he said he had been tortured and something had been implanted. He did not attack people, or run from them, he manifested no sociopathic behavior. He didn't care that his "psychiatric symptomatology" was documented; he wanted whatever was inside him that was foreign (implants) removed. I find no notation of feigned or unfeigned "psychiatric symptoms", other than having "twitches", which are difficult to feign.
Alternatively, Mr. Lambros has spent most of his waking time, for over a year, attempting to get across to everyone who might listen or help the fact that something foreign was implanted or 'put or placed' inside him and that he is now "controlled, monitored and watched" by those who "implanted" him.
Mr. Johnson (pseudonym) told me he had known Mr. Lambros for thirty years, had spoken to him many times since he was returned to Minnesota, and asked for my opinion concerning Mr. Lambros' sanity and sincerity. I have known Mr. Johnson for several years. I said I would talk to Mr. Lambros, and after doing so, I agreed to read through the various motions he had made and make a summation of my thoughts diagnostically and prognostically, at least in part, so that Mr. Johnson could make an informed decision on whether he might be able to help an old friend. He told me that Mr. Lambros had been arrested for conspiracy to sell cocaine, had subsequently violated parole, had been arrested in Brazil, was incarcerated there for 13 months and was then returned to the United States.
I read the forensic report, and the transcript of Dr. Wells testimony at the competency hearing and found it to be an inappropriate argument for competency. An artifact is something made by man, not dust or lint.
A forensic report is, however, an argument for something, and as such, the artifact is a huge problem since it could simply imply þthat Mr. Lambros was correct about his complaints. The subsequent x-ray would undoubtedly cause doubt and paranoia (or appropriate fear) in an unstable person, one with a "personality disorder", which Dr. Kucharski guessed might be true of Mr. Lambros. This would certainly constitute a 'mental defect' or weakness. The question, as always, is the size or amount of impairment it might cause or be responsible for. These are "loopholes" in an argument for competency. They are grist for the attorneys and the judge.
I then perused the forensic evaluation of the FMC Rochester. Here the staff sounded more like lawyers than healers, Ph.D.'s and M.D.'s, but again, this was a forensic report, an argument or rationale.
Mr. Lambros "denied" a family history of psychiatric, neurologic or substance abuse difficulties. The inference I drew was that the staff physicians and psychologists suspected that Mr. Lambros had psychological problems, difficulties or illness since childhood, resulting from trauma or an inherited deficiency. The psychologist also apparently suspected "Attention Deficit Disorder", or "Learning Disability." In backing up his suspicion, the psychologist noted social isolation and two arrests while a juvenile. One for giving a false report and one for theft.
Thereafter, Mr. Lambros completed a four year degree in Liberal Arts and Psychology while incarcerated. This is an odd background for a person who clearly never attempted to fake or feign any of the symptoms of schizophrenia or psychosis. Mr. Lambros knew, one would presume, enough to do this. Yet, he never attempted to appear incompetent or distracted, confused, or diminished in capacity in any way the staff were trained to recognize. This seems to almost have puzzled the F.M.C. Rochester staff.
Dr. Kucharski concluded that Mr. Lambros "was having fun with the courtroom" when he said he had "Implants in his head". All of the forensic examiners seem almost amazed that Mr. Lambros apparently understands his legal position, speaks coherently and intelligently, and answers appropriately. Indeed, for someone who majored in psychology and was attempting to appear incompetent to stand trial, Mr. Lambros was failing utterly and completely.
Mr. Lambros wrote letters to Amnesty International, law firms, sections of the Brazilian government, lawyers, etc. All of the letters were appropriate, rational, cogent and specific as far as the forensic people were concerned. Mr. Lambros simply complained that he had been implanted and was being controlled from inside his head by whoever had caused him to be implanted.
Perhaps the staff found this rational because it comprised Mr. Lambros' attempt to be found incompetent. That wasn't stated; the evaluators' statement was that Mr. Lambros was feigning insanity or having fun with the court.
The F.M.C. Rochester report notes that Mr. Lambros simply didn't act incompetent, diminished, inappropriate, or even confused. He acted like a stable individual who reported torture in a Brazilian jail and "implants".
Mr. Lambros was "consistent and euthymic." (at page ___ ) One appreciates words like euthymic. This word will not be found in Webster's International Dictionary. The Greek eu, means good or well. Thymic comes from thymos or thumos and means heart or feeling. This directly followed and described Mr. Lambros' affect following movements of limbs which he said were controlled, as was his speech, by "foreigners" or "individuals in control" of his being. How is affect here viewed as consistent or euthymic? It would seem more consistent were Mr. Lambros to disassociate, express fear and anger or exhibit confusion and loss of control.ÞI find this an extremely odd statement on the evaluators' part unless he first assumed that Mr. Lambros knew that the evaluator knew that this was for "fun". This presumption is irrational since the next three sentences stress the fact that Mr. Lambros went to great lengths to convince the evaluator of the authenticity of his "symptomatology".
Why would anyone not act out the role they had chosen to play and do so completely given the idea he is trying to avoid a life sentence? The note goes on to say that Mr. Lambros spoke about the "feasibility" of behavior control through implantation. He did not try to convince the evaluator of his condition but rather of the fact that what he was claiming could be done.
Assuming that something had been physically implanted, Mr. Lambros had spent his last year learning what he could about what had been done to him, how it could be done and with what devices. There can be no doubt about the amount of reading Mr. Lambros has done. There has been a good deal of contact with Amnesty International and other such organizations, and he has learned what he can about implantation. Virtually all of his communication with the world has concerned the methodology of implantation, torture and mind/body control.
Under "current mental status" the evaluator says that Mr. Lambros' "affect was full and at times euphoric". He also notes that throughout the course of the evaluation "Mr. Lambros has always presented as quite congenial and gregarious." At the bottom of page _____ , the evaluator diagnosed Mr. Lambros as "Antisocial Personality Disorder". Of the ten symptoms of that disorder listed in the DSM-III, the evaluator listed only two. Neither would be necessary or sufficient; in fact, there would have to be two symptoms linked together in at least two instances for that diagnosis to be made.
In the entire report from the FMC Rochester, I could find no rationale for the Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnosis. Possibly, the evaluator feels that anyone who is convicted of a crime is antisocial. Moreover, nothing in the case material specified Mr. Lambros' use of drugs except in an older interview. The only statements that I saw were to the effect that Mr. Lambros "appears to have a history of significant substance abuse" (FMC, pg. 4), but no mention is made of where this appearance originates. In the same place, it says that Mr. Lambros didn't discuss his use, abuse or non-use of substances with the evaluator. He was arrested for assault of a Federal Officer and possession of cocaine. Perhaps, the reference is to the use of barbiturates and amphetamines in one of the pre-sentence reports. It sounds as if Mr. Lambros was having a lot of trouble getting up and going to sleep. The amphetamine and barbiturate use is not really surprising under the circumstances. It sounds to me as if Mr. Lambros was an amateur drug dealer.
This writer has not looked at forensic reports since coming to Minnesota in 1973. I did write several reports in California prior to that time. The forensic reports on John Lambros constitute prejudice; they are hostile arguments, not objective reports. They are acceptable if one has already decided that Mr. Lambros is guilty and feigning mental illness, but that is not the evaluators' function. Their function should be to assess his mental status, his competency.
With the exception of the artifacts visible in the first x-Þray what we are presented with is a polite, quite affable man who was convicted of selling an illegal substance and assaulting a Federal Officer who says he was tortured and that something was put into his head; 'something was implanted into his head' in Brazil.
The paragraph that begins on page three, paragraph twenty-five and ends on page six, paragraph thirty-eight in the report (information taken from state department reference and Judge Murphy, Jan. 1993) is what my mother used to call a "lulu". It is on its fact delusional, paranoid, schizophrenic, incoherent, dissociated, bizarre, manifests potentially severe personality and character defects and various psychotic ideations, both congruent and contradictory. I find it neither euphoric nor euthymic. In fact, it sounds like a real nightmare.
At this point, the question is whether Mr. Lambros is lying through his teeth. If he isn't, why do two people who have spent five to ten hours examining him think he is. It seems to me this is because they can converse with him. He seems to make sense. He answers rationally, demonstrates insight, pellucidity, focus and a good sense of identity. Therefore, he can't be crazy, mental defective, psychotic, what have you. He is, the evaluator notes, extremely articulate and obviously intelligent. In short, he sounds just like one of them, but he was caught breaking the law. That's the only difference. That and the fact that he thinks someone put something in his brain.
But, we all know that's not the only difference. I refer again to pages three to six, the "lulu". Later, the evaluator remarks that "full contact with reality was maintained". That's a claim that even John Paul Sarte would not dream of making, nor would anyone who had just listened to Mr. Lambros.
Several statements would disturb anyone reading the competency proceedings. On pages six and seven of the district court proceeding, the last sentence states that Dr. Kucharski's testimony "indicates that the defendant is an atypical schizophrenic and that the defendant suffers from no mental disease or defect" Schizophrenia is a mental disease. "Atypical" can be looked up in The Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) under schizophrenic disorders. On page 187 under schizophrenic disorders, it states that an atypical affective disorder may be superimposed on schizophrenia. Farther down, an atypical psychosis is diagnosed when there is a non-affective psychotic disorder but insufficient information to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Atypical schizophrenia is still schizophrenia. It simply states that there is not enough information to make a more specific designation.
On page three of the report, Dr. Kucharski notes that the "behavioral control exhibited by the defendant was not the normal type of behavioral control in a schizophrenic." I am certain that is why he called it atypical. Normal is oxymoronic when used to describe schizophrenia.
The diagnosis states, after blaming drug use/abuse, that Mr. Lambros has an Antisocial Personality Disorder. Yet, practically none of the marks of the disorder are present. The diagnosis also lists Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I doubt that anyone would find the various symptoms necessary for that diagnosis either. There is no grandiose, exaggerated sense of achievement, preoccupation with the fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, ideal love, etc. It is just not there in the notes or evaluation. It might be intuited, but it is not there factually. On the other hand, there is no question about the use of the barbiturates and amphetamines.
There are several things that can be stated with a high level of confidence:
a) You don't state, as a medical expert, that someone appreciates their legal rights because of a letter they wrote to Amnesty International several months before you examine them. There are two reasons for this. First, it is in the past, and secondly, it has nothing to do with a psychological examination.
b) No one faced with a mandatory life sentence without parole has fun with the courtroom. At least, no one who is competent to stand trial.
c) Once you have gotten an x-ray that shows an artifact, (something structurally inappropriate) you tend to believe there is something there. When a second x-ray doesn't show what the first one did and you note that the intensity setting has been diminished, you wonder why and whether, were the intensity kept constant, the artifact would show up again.
d) What kind of thesis would define an artifact as "a piece of dust?" No dictionary does. With reference to page five, footnote three of the October 30, 1992, Order of Magistrate, Franklin C. Noel, had the footnote stated that dust can cause the appearance of an artifact, it would be considered accurate and fair. To begin by defining an artifact as lint, demonstrates absolute prejudice.
e) Schizophrenia is a mental disease. The last two sentences on page six and seven are absolutely contradictory. Mr. Lambros cannot, at the same time, be free of mental defect or disease and be a schizophrenic
f) Logically, a college graduate with a major in psychology would not choose to claim that something physical had been done, i.e. that something had been physically implanted that could be demonstrated to be true or false by virtue of an MRI. Anything he claimed that couldn't be checked mechanically would make much more sense. From this, I conclude that Mr. Lambros does believe that something was done to him. That something was implanted. I will return to this.
I met with Mr. Lambros and Ian Johnson, an attorney and childhood friend of Lambros on 10-13-93. Mr. Lambros said that someone else was controlling, monitoring and speaking through him. He exhibited some convulsive, voluntary muscle reflex partially spasmolytic and a form of ataxia and did so cursorily. Then he attempted to address his legal status. None of my impressions of conclusions match what Mr. Lambros says happened to him. I am concerned with his present state for several reasons. I have looked at the statements made by FMC Rochester staff, and at multifarious documents Mr. Lambros has collected. I have also read the motions he has made to the fourth district court. I consider Mr. Lambros' attempt to prove that there are "foreign bodies" within Lambros' a metaphor. Either consciously or unconsciously metaphoried, but undoubtedly under immense stress, fear of squalid conditions, possibly torture, he attempted to represent what was done to him in Brasilia. This construct consists of his stated belief that foreign bodies were somehow implanted.
Mr. Lambros' October 12, 1993, emergency memo, if we presume the unconscious metaphor is authentic, only the hypostatization, that is the reification, is made up. It can be translated as 'things were done to me in Brazil which hurt and terrified me.' 'I lost my internal sense of self, my psychophysical integrity and can no longer trust myself.' 'I know that I an now creating and generating my own confusion and disintegration.' Thus, his body generates "the current" or energy that begins to dissolve the sense of self. 'I have found analogues for what has happened and is happening to me and what has been done recently with micro chips and micro processors (which control networks).'
Mr. Lambros knows little about what can be done with surgical implants, but he has done a good deal of reading. Implantation is apparently what he feels is the closest to what has been done to him. He doesn't know that it hasn't been done, and while using such a construct to appear insane by acting as if he were convulsing or experiencing ataxia, he is probably imitating the actions he either has witnessed or experienced. No one doubts the fact that torture is commonplace in Brazil. The information in the Human Rights Watch is accurate, as are the facts that Amnesty International has published.
The question of Mr. Lambros' competency is extremely complex. Suffice to say that John Lambros would require years to recover if he were treated for schizophrenia. The sandcastle he has constructed is a theoretical hypothesis. While he claimed it to be fact, the sandcastle appears in the motions he has been making to the court during the month of September and October of 1993, to have become something he can live in, at least part of the tine. The old saw about a neurotic being someone who builds sandcastles and a psychotic someone who lives in then is probably the best definition of the two states of mind and the difference between them that I know of. Mr. Lambros is slowly now losing his psychological balance, maybe not so slowly.
I have no knowledge of what happened to John Lambros during the months contained in the court documents. When I met him with Ian Johnson, he asked me to assess Mr. Lambros; in short, he wanted to know if I found him to be cogent, rational and his story believable. He also wanted me to find out if Mr. Lambros believed what he was saying. Mr. Johnson is an extremely cynical man and wanted confirmation that Mr. Lambros believed what he was saying. This seemed strange to me until I read a book that Mr. Johnson gave me on the kinds of things that had been done to peoples minds by various government agencies. It is an extraordinary text. It included the unconscionable LSD experiments that were done on army personal by the CIA and it included the men in Georgia that had been given syphilis and were told there was nothing wrong with them. It included some of the thoughtful things that the United States Government does from time to time. The story of implants is plausible, although the book was written before the advent of semiconductor sophistication.
The FMC Rochester technician's remark of dust on x-rays was plausible. The kind of mind control Mr. Lambros was relating seemed incredible. However, Mr. Kucharski felt Mr. Lambros too intelligent a man to claim anything that Implausible without son reason.
Mr. Lambros was polite and distracted when we met in a small room In the county facility. He carried a box of documents with him, sat down and told me that he was being monitored by people in Brasilia. Mr. Lambros then exhibited several uncoordinated movements of involuntary muscle groups of the upper body common to various forms of ataxia. This kind of ataxia results in the loss of control of the CNS. It could be caused by tumors in the frontal, parietal or temporal lobes, not by occipital or subcostal tumors. It could also be caused by artificial stimulation of the CNS.
Since Mr. Lambros did not report the other affects common to CNS stimulation, e.g. aphasia, dysphasia, impairment of cortical sensory modalities, etc., I assumed that his behavior was at one time experienced or watched, that it had been learned, or it was being stimulated. I had the sense that Mr. Lambros believed that he was somehow controlled and that the convulsive muscle group movements were a kind of factitious demonstration. This kind of thing has been called factitious neurosis to distinguish it from malingering.
At the time of my visit with Mr. Lambros, it was clear that Mr. Lambros was afraid of something that had been done to him in Brazil, and the fear was current. That is something could be done again or might be done again. It was evident that Mr. Lambros wanted us to understand that he was monitored, controlled, etc. and that those who were responsible could make him say whatever they wished him to say.
I didn't believe that Mr. Lambros was being 'monitored' but I did feel that his fear and belief that something had been done to him was genuine. It was also clear that he had lost his sense of who he was; he lost his integrity. That might seem a strange word to use for a man in his position, but I don't feel that every felon has necessarily lost his integrity. At one point, I said to Mr. Lambros "You have known Ian Johnson for thirty years?" Mr. Lambros simply stared at me; he didn't seem to hear or comprehend or register what I said. It was as if he had no reference for that fact. At another point, I asked him how long he had been in Brazil. Again, he just looked at me having heard me and understood me. It was really as if something had switched off. Mr. Lambros honestly had no sense of who it was I was talking about. Had I asked him how long his clothes had been in Brazil, I might have gotten a better response. I had a hunch I would, but I didn't ask it at the time
Sometime in the last eighteen months Mr. Lambros lost his sense of identity. Fear can cause that, but regression gathers momentum. Looking over some of the paperwork he carries about with him, one is struck with his attention to detail. He is excellent with names and dates. As one looks through his motions to the court, a gradual loss of first pertinency, then specificity and finally real relevance is evident.
John Lambros is no longer making appropriate, logical motions. The man writing these motions is no longer completely Integrated He may not be capable of making relevant motions at this point.
All illness is loss of integrity, of the basic integration necessary for the purposeful acts necessary to live. Experts have come to different conclusions, but no one would say after careful scrutiny that John Lambros fully comprehends his situation. He knows he is in big trouble and has some vague sense of what his life could be. He is acting as if he were automatically responding.
An examination of the motions suggests, experientially, Mr. Lambros' current psycho-physical status. He Is apparently in dread of something, possibly of something like life-long incarceration. He is debilitated; he has no reason to hope. He may be more afraid of what will happen to him if he doesn't go to prison than if he does. Mr. Lambros constructed a theory of what might have been done to him, of his feelings and memories. He may believe it was done; he may believe that if he says that it was done, it is closer to how he is than anything else. Whatever he is saying, there is enough truth in it for me to feel that the work-up that was done at FMC Rochester was grossly inadequate and unfair.
From the information available, John Lambros experienced a psychotic break in Brazil, precipitated by the arrest and incarceration under conditions that have been described by such organizations as America Watch and Amnesty International. Any form of arrest constitutes an extreme psychosocial stressor. During the residual phase, there were delusions as well as affective blunting. There is the probability of Organic Delusional Syndrome due to amphetamines, barbiturates and cocaine use that mirror schizophrenic symptomatology. The Idea of being controlled and 'thought broadcasting' suggest that a paranoid disorder can probably be ruled out.
The bizarre delusions, somatic delusions with persecutory content, etc., are appropriate from the early period of arrest. The factitious movement may have begun as a result of being, or seeing others, shocked with electric prods or battery terminals. As is common in a paranoid type of schizophrenia, the functional impairment was minimal. I doubt that Mr. Lambros remembers what he did see, what he was afraid he would see, what was done to him or what they told him they would do to him.
It is significant that prior to his arrest in Brazil, John Lambros had never been or been suspected of having any mental or psychiatric disorder, even though he had been incarcerated for several years.
Arrest and incarceration in Brazil constitute an extraordinary psychosocial stressor. A brief reactive psychosis would have been an appropriate response and as apt a diagnosis as any. But I know of no memory impairment, (which is usually definitive.) Moreover, the symptomatology should have reversed more quickly in the reactive context. It would also be safe to suggest an atypical psychosis but for the absence of catatonia. However, all the information I have to go on was released about Mr. Lambros' treatment in Brazil by the state department to Judge Murphy. This Information is Inadequate for further speculation. Since an MRI has yet to be done, and since Mr. Lambros seems to be anxious about the actual process, I tend to trust most of what he has noted from that time.
Diagnosis is categorization. The FMC Rochester staff argued that Mr. Lambros should be dealt with as if he were psychologically sound. The staff based their opinion on a letter John Lambros wrote to Amnesty International, on the varying amount of investment (gauged subjectively) , which Mr. Lambros manifested in displaying his symptoms, and although it is never stated, on the fact that the evaluators felt that Mr. Lambros was too focused and controlled, and too able to understand and communicate, to be mentally ill. On the other hand, Mr. Lambros never claimed that he was or is 'ill'. He has claimed that something was done to him. Something was implanted in his body, specifically in his head.
All diagnoses are based on similarities and differences which are collated and made meaningful by statistics. Fortunately, human beings are not statistics; they are individuals. There is no such thing as a statistic, and therefore, no one ever fits any model or paradigm well. In my opinion, John Lambros believes something was done to him. I do not know whether it was or wasn't. But whether the implants are instanciated as a fact or a metaphor, if Mr. Lambros believes the implants exist on either level, he will not be able to defend himself appropriately.
Kenneth J. Criqui, Ph.D.
January 19, 1994
1 Mr. Johnson is an attorney and childhood friend of Mr. Lambros.
2 Dr. Kenneth Criqui Ph.D. holds a doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley and Santa Cruz in the History of Consciousness and Psychology, taught at the University of Minnesota and at MMSU and has been a psychoanalyst since 1973.
3 This definition is FMC Rochester's statement of a foregone conclusion.
4 After extradition, immediately following his arrest in Brazil, Mr. Lambros suffered some form of breakdown.
5 If Mr. Lambros does have objects in his cranium, everything he has said has been appropriate, although his competency would then be dependent upon those objects and how they might impair his competency. If he doesn't have objects or implants, and believes he does, his competency depends upon his rationale for believing this but is undoubtedly questionable. If there are no implants and Mr. Lambros doesn't believe there are, (a polygraph would demonstrate this) then he worked longer and harder at demonstrating the most easily refutable rationale for incompetency one can imagine. This is, or could be at least, one way of saying that an idea or concept was inculcated, that is implants. The only distinction is that Mr. Lambros is already convinced that the planting or implanting was of physical objects. He requested a polygraph while at FMC Rochester, but that request was denied.
5 After extradition, immediately following his arrest in Brazil, Mr. Lambros suffered some form of breakdown.
6 Now I am sure that Mr. Lambros would not say it quite that way, but that's what I would call an analogy or an extrapolation to hypostases.
7 The Mind Manipulators, Scheflin & Opton, 1978, Paddington Press.
8 factition - not malingering. The DSM III differentiates the two. There is no reason for factitious symptoms - no reward
Since writing the body of my evaluation of John G. Lambros, I have had occasion to read the competency motion filed by Mr. Lambros' attorney, Charles Faulkner. The court has apparently ordered additional tests, but Mr. Faulkner failed to act on the court's order, overt his client's objections.
At sometime during the past year, Mr. Faulkner came to believe that Mr. Lambros is incompetent. Mr. Faulkner does not say whether this has always been his belief. It is possible that Mr. Faulkner is either simply unmotivated and unwilling to put forth the requisite effort to defend Mr. Lambros, or worse, and if Mr. Faulkner truly believes that Mr. Lambros is incompetent now (and therefore has been incompetent for some time now), Mr. Faulkner has failed to act on that belief to help Mr. Lambros.
Exactly when Mr. Faulkner came to his present conclusion is very important, because every day of failure to provide adequate representation. Perhaps Mr. Faulkner just did not understand the complete incongruity of the FMC Rochester results. If that is the case, he failed to adequately represent Mr. Lambros because he failed to obtain the necessary knowledge. Other possibilities are worse yet.
The effect on Mr. Lambros of this is significant, since the court appointed attorney must have had more time with Mr. Lambros than any of the staff at FMC Rochester. No one could avoid a paranoid reaction to their attorney's failure to implement a court order on their behalf, as well as his subsequent motion for incompetency. In fact, such a reaction (fear of your supposed attorney and possible collusion with the prosecution) could not even be called paranoid, it would be and is logical.
The government could not have done a better job of instilling fear and paranoia in Mr. Lambros had they hired a psychiatrist to plan this out. First Mr. Lambros was sent to FMC Rochester. The first x-ray showed something, and while the second showed nothing, it is plain and evident that the second x-ray was taken at a different intensity setting and is therefore quite invalid to compare to the first. How better to make the subject think that the government is just involved in "another one its cover-ups"?
Mr. Lambros relates another interesting event. He was taken to Abbott-Northwestern Hospital by Marshals for testing by Dr. Minette. The Marshals sat in the control room while a CT Scan was taken. On the way back to the hospital, a Marshal told Mr. Lambros that the technician said they found something in his skull. Perhaps they did. But perhaps the Marshall was just having a little fun with Mr. Lambros. In either case, nothing could more effectively instill fear in Mr. Lambros. Add to this the fact that Mr. Lambros has been held for over a year now since his conviction without sentencing, and the fact that his attorney has Dr. Minette's order for MRI examination of Mr. Lambros. I believe that what most would call paranoia is actually normal fear, inculcated by silence, maliciously or out of ignorance.
My personal judgement is that whatever was done to Mr. Lambros in Brazil was instantiated by him as a physical event. "Implants" explain his psychic confusion and fear. His failure to get those holding him to allow the MRI requested by Dr. Minette, as well as the "artifact" that showed up in one x-ray at FMC Rochester, adds to Mr. Lambros' confusion. Whether Mr. Lambros has implants.
The United States will spend some $38,000 each year Mr. Lambros is incarcerated in addition to whatever medical procedures it performs. Mr. Lambros' mother requested an MRI one year ago at his trial. Despite a court order for testing and Dr. Minette's order for the MRI, it has not been done. The fear instilled in Mr. Lambros over the past year since his return from Brazil has contributed to the condition outlined by Mr. Faulkner, which in my opinion, as well as Mr. Faulkner's, has rendered Mr. Lambros incapable of contributing to his defense in a meaningful way.
Kenneth J. Criqui, Ph.D.
January 19, 1994
For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000