June 16, 2004 by

Jim Grigson

34 comments

Categories: Law, Medicine

Dr. James Paul Grigson, a forensic psychiatrist who testified about the mental health of murderers, died on June 3 of lung cancer. He was 72.
Born in Texarkana, Texas, Grigson graduated from Texas A&M University and Southwestern Medical School. He originally practiced medicine in emergency rooms, delivering more than 300 babies, then focused on psychiatry so he could spend more time with his own family.
For the next four decades, Grigson provided paid expert testimony on whether people charged with homicide should go to prison or were legally insane and needed hospitalization. Hired by both prosecutors and defense attorneys, he was nicknamed “Dr. Death” for his contributions to 150 capital murder trials. In a majority of those cases, Grigson determined the defendants were sociopaths who would likely kill again.
Grigson was reviled and revered for his medical opinions, charming demeanor on the stand and absolute judgments. His reputation was tarnished in 1995, however, when he predicted a felon’s potential threat to society without actually interviewing him. Grigson was later expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians. In recent years, he stopped testifying in death penalty cases, but continued to work on civil cases and mental-competency reviews.

34 Responses to Jim Grigson

  1. lee grigson

    The author doesn’t need the word “actually” in the last paragraph. Grigson examined the criminal and medical records, which by themselves were sufficient for him to draw an opinion that it was an absolute certainty that the criminal would be a continued threat to society and would “absolutely, positively kill again” if not given a death sentence. By pointing out that said criminal had graduated from minor crimes in youth to successively more serious crimes- here ending in a capital murder trial, the jury of twelve voted to exterminate the vermin. Just which part of protecting society from these killers does the APA not get? If you don’t cut out a cancer, it spreads with a medical certainty- here the killer gets worse only by the number of victims killed. Age nearing 50 certainly slows killers down, however, during that time you have exposed prison guards, other prison inmates to these dangerous types. Grigson’s examination (face to face) of some 15,000 criminals was sufficient to give him expertise the anti-death penalty folks would choke on.

  2. Noble

    In response to the two previous posts:
    You people must be insane. It’s just too bad James Grigson isn’t here to diagnose your condition.
    “Charming” is not a synonym for sinister. Dr. Grigson wore the “title” of “Dr.” like a thief does a hockey mask and with little consideration for what responsibilities that right required of him. I hope God shows him more mercy than he did his victims.

  3. Heisha Hudson

    He was my grandfather. It amazes me how the press twisted the facts, leaving people like yourself to believe and write his story the way you do. One little known fact is that he found the majority of defendants he analyzed as sane, i.e. NOT sociopaths and NOT likely to kill again if given proper rehabilitation. However, when this was his determination, the district attorney often would not use him as a witness. Another note that I think deserves mention. The AMA and APA tried more than once to expel him as a member, but my grandfather stated his case and won, keeping his membership. That is until they tried again in 1995. He was dealing with the death of his mother, my great-grandmother and opted to be home with his family, rather than flying off to state his case once again! It was dirty pool on the part of the AMA and APA and yet it is my grandfather who paid the price.

  4. Elizabeth

    Dr. Grigson was a man who had the inner strength to stand up and do what other men cower when thinking of it. He put himself on the line and opened his life (and probably his family’s life) to reporter speculation and twisting. To Lee Grigson and Heisha Hudson let me apologize for insensitive fools who have no life and want to capitalize on your relatives death for their own 5 minutes of fame. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family as you grieve your loss. God bless you.

  5. Jan Emerson Riley

    I’d like to know how many face-to-face interviews with Dr. Grigson “Noble” based HIS opinions on. Dr. Grigson’s dear mother and my mother were sisters, and I can attest that no one who had met him could EVER refer to him as sinister. Someone who is sinister would do something dastardly, such as denigrating a recently deceased gentleman in a forum where his main target is the deceased’s family. “Noble” is, without a doubt, the grandest misnomer I’ve ever seen.

  6. Robert Stewart

    I am someone who has met Grigson face to face
    and he fully qualifies to be called sinister. During my contacts with him, he left me with the impression of an overwhelmingly bitter, hate-filled misanthropic individual who was always ready to criticize and condemn others. He frequently lost his temper and excessively used the “f word.” The philosopher Nietzsche once wrote “to be wary of those who have a strong desire to punish.” This certainly applied to “Doc G.” In the years since our association, I have frequently thought Grigson was the closest I had ever come to the type of people that administrated the Nazi Death Camps. I must express suprise that there
    are relatives on this blog defending him. Eichmann, Mengele, and Hoss’s relatives never tried to defend them.

  7. Michelle

    Dr. Grigson helped put away the man who brutally raped me, then my mother before murdering her in front of me. I was 8 years old.
    He is a hero to all who stand on the right side of the law and enemy to those who would embrace cold blooded murderers, for those are the ones he testified against. It’s a harsh reality that some humans are born so mentally messed up that they commit these crimes and enjoy them. Hail to Dr. Grigson and all who are brave enough to follow in his footsteps. What a pity his well earned medical degree is questioned by those who have nothing concrete to offer. What a pity that some feel a need to tarnish his reputation without so much as seeing the whole picture for what he was. What a pity.

  8. Noreen

    I have had mixed feelings about this man since he testified against my own father. I am torn and at times, angry at Dr. Grigson. But then, I have to remind myself, that he is just one person who testified. It was the jury who found my father guilty and sentenced him to death, not the psychiatrist. So why is it that my anger, along with so many others, runs to him above others associated with the trial? I have agonized over this for years. What if he hadn’t testified that day? What if just one juror disagreed? What if… The sad conclusion I have come to, after many years of therapy, is that it was ultimately my father who committed his heinous crimes. He is the one who sentenced himself to death, not those who showed up for court during his trial. The sad truth is, if my father had not been found guilty and sentenced to death, I have no doubt that he would have continued his murdering streak. He was mentally ill and never felt even a twinge of guilt for any of the unspeakable things he did to others. Am I better off without him? Is the world? Are those he would’ve murdered, if given more time to roam free? I don’t know, but I do know, that his fate was a choosing of his own, and not those of the people who showed up for court.

  9. Thomas

    Michelle you wrote:
    “He is a hero to all who stand on the right side of the law and enemy to those who would embrace cold blooded murderers … ”
    This is simply not true. If you had enough money, Grigson was perfectly willing to testify in your defense. Take the case of Richard Lyon, who cruelly subjected his wife to a painful poisoning death over a period of months.
    In Lyon’s murder trial to the astonishment of onlookers, Grigson testified that she poisoned herself because of her own psychological problems. He came up with this “diagnosis” without having ever met the deceased woman or even talking to Mrs. Lyon’s family members or friends. He did no background work at all. Of course, the reason for Grigson’s conclusion was the defense was paying him for this testimony. Fortunately, the jury saw this for the outrage it was and convicted Lyon. (Today, he remains in prison, although he becomes eligible for parole in December.)
    But Grigson still got his money just like he did when testifying in the punishment phase of capital murder trials. In at least 2 cases, in which Grigson had testified the accused “was certain to kill again,” and therefore should be executed, the defendents were later exonerated after spending over a decade on death row. Neither has had even “a brush” with the law in the many years since their release. Let alone killed anyone.
    But it was “expert testimony” like this and in the Lyon case that enabled Grigson to have his affluent lifestyle and Park Cities home. It’s also the reason for his expulsion from the American Psychiatric Association.

  10. Mike

    A little quote from Errol Morris, director of “The Thin Blue Line”.
    “Dr. Grigson predicted that Randall Adams would kill and kill again. He has now been out of prison for over fifteen years with no misdemeanors or felonies – including murder. David Harris, the chief prosecution witness against Adams was also interviewed by Dr. Grigson around the same time. Dr. Grigson said he was not involved in the murder and was a sweet, innocent 16 year-old kid incapable of violence. He was executed this last year for a murder he committed ten years later. You can hear his confession to the 1976 murder of Dallas Police Officer Robert Wood at the end of The Thin Blue Line.”

  11. David

    I knew Jim Grigson for years and admired him very much. He served in the military during wartime, where he did everything from brain surgery to delivering babies. He was a brilliant man who went on to teach others and has left a legacy that no other could hope to follow.
    Jim had a wonderful sense of humor and was very much in love with his wife whom he had 4 children with. He was a man who saw right through any bull-crap and often made those, with something to hide, feel uncomfortable with his poker face and air of authority. I often wonder how his daughter’s dates must have felt when they met him for the first time! I have a feeling his girls were treated with respect by their dates, as any good father would want!
    This is a man who commanded a rooms attention by his very presence. As a young married doctor, he made wise investment choices which afforded a life of comfortability for his family. They lived in a small house for years, until they were able to afford a larger one. (Jim lived in far North Dallas, not Park Cities as someone has posted here.) After his divorce, he moved to a modest apartment in Northeast Dallas and later to a larger one in Dallas, but never Park Cities. He was not a lavish man and did not live a life of luxury.
    In her golden years, he made sure his mother was comfortable and had all she needed, even if it meant he did without. This mans heart was in the right place and his actions followed common sense and good living.
    Jim absolutely LOVED his grandchildren. His first was a grand-daughter born to his oldest daughter. He spent lots of time with his grand-daughter, playing with her, teaching her how to play the piano, playing board games, etc. He once told me that she wanted to follow in his footsteps, but he advised against it, wanting to protect her from the harsh reality of public ignorance and how it would affect her life. Reading these posts, I understand what he was trying to protect her from.
    Jim loved to take his family on family vacations. It was important to him that they had a well balanced childhood and plenty of good memories. Christmas and Thanksgiving were his favorite holidays because they were celebrated with family. His family meant everything to him.
    This was a man who had his priorities in order and lived a good life. He went to school, earned a medical degree, served in the military, got married, raised four children (five if you count the grand-daughter he helped raise), gave back to the community and generally led the best life he could. He was somewhat of a pioneer, which makes him a controversy. But he is in good company with others such as: Amelia Earhart, General Dodge, Daniel Boone, Dr. Michael DeBakey and James Marshall. Today, criminal profiling has become commonplace and universities teach criminology courses where his work is mentioned in many textbooks as good examples of “how to.”
    Dr. Grigson was simply a pioneer. Hats off to him.

  12. EKJ

    I have to wonder why there are so many negative articles about him now that he is dead? Why weren’t there any when he was alive? I have found positive articles on him writen during his lifetime, including literally THOUSANDS of references to his name in newspapers and magazines, plus many in textbooks. A supreme court law was enacted in part, because of this man, and the laws during his lifetime! He had a positive impact on our legal system. To prove it, he had 150 prominent people show up for the retirement party thrown in his honor, including politicians! Where are those prominent people now that he is gone and being bashed in the media? I guess that’s what you get when you have politicians for friends, huh? He deserved better.

  13. Psych

    As a psychology major, one of the first things you learn is that it’s impossible to predict with 100% certainty; a feat this man claimed to be capable of doing. It’s simple, psychology involves looking at the way a person acts, not predicting how they will.

  14. Tiffany

    How is he any different than the doctors who diagnose famous people on talk shows when they havne’t ever met the star? Just turn on the televevision and you will hear experts talking about Britney Spears psychological and drug problems or Paris Hilton’s problems. They give a diagnosis and treatment plan recommendations without ever meeting the stars. What’s the difference? Dr. Grigson was a pioneer for what is now commonplace. Tens of thousands of cases he was involved with and idiots pick out one or two that are possibly exceptions to the rule? It’s laughable! He was genious!

  15. Emily & Dan of Nashville

    Having moved from Texas, 30 years ago, we lost touch with the Grigson family and regrettably, just now learned of James passing.
    It is very interesting to hear so many negative comments from individuals who only new about Dr. Grigson via slanted media accounts.
    The James Grigson we knew was a very kind, generous, and loving person. Knowing him since my chilhood, when he worked in my parents grocery store to put himself through college, and having been welcomed in his home many times, we know personally, what a compassionate, devoted family man and friend he was.
    He was one of those rare individuals willing to take on “the dirty job” that the rest of society is willing to sit back and let someone else do. What a shame it is, to read the maligning remarks made of an individual that tried to do his job to the best of his training and experience.
    Was he perfect? No. Are any of us? Was he flawed? Probably so. He was human and subject to the same shortcomings of us all. But James was a dedicated professional. He did not seek the spotlight, it sought him. He could have taken the easy road, given his education and ablities, and enjoyed the accolades of a celebrity talk show host or other mental health personality giving “30 second” advice to a studio audience. Instead, he chose to serve the public good.
    To Kathy, Lee, Greg and Vicky, you know the true measure of your Dad’s life. We are only sorry that we were not there to share your grief. Know that in time, history will understand that he did the right things.

  16. Hilary

    I can understand Dr. Grigson’s family members rushing to his defense – accepting that someone you loved made his living for many years by prostituting his medical credentials on behalf of the many prosecutors willing to waste public money on his utterly unscientific “predictions” must be very difficult. However, a review of the available materials, including many articles – and legal opinions – published during his lifetime, demonstrate him to have been a contemptible charlatan. When the history of the death penalty, and of the use of scientific evidence in the courts, is written it will not demonstrate that Dr. Grigson “did the right things” but that he engaged in actions that were intended to result in the death of another human being, even when he had no scientific basis for those actions. In that respect he was morally no different from Dr. Mengele, even if the death of the other individual was less immediate than in the case of Nazi medical experimentation. If his family members have proof that he ever received genuine accolades from the medical community for his work, I suggest that they post detailed references to the articles in question on this site in order to correct the record. As an attorney who is familiar with Dr. Grigson’s “work” and with the scientific literature on predictions of future dangerousness, I doubt very much that they will be able to do so.

  17. Mark Davis

    Both the American Psychiatric and American Psychological Associations stipulate that rendering a diagnosis as part of an evaluation without having interviewed the subject in question is unethical. On this alone, Grigson’s behavior was clearly unethical. The fact that he would perform such slipshod work when a person’s life hung in the balance is unconscionable and despicable.
    Grigson’s son, Lee, writes that “Grigson examined the criminal and medical records, which by themselves were sufficient for him to draw an opinion that it was an absolute certainty that the criminal would be a continued threat to society and would “absolutely, positively kill again”.” Besides being flatly wrong by the most basic tenets of forensic psychiatry and psychology, this statement is absurd on it’s face. Lee simply has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s either ignorant, seriously biased, or both.
    Heisha Hudson (a granddaughter) asserts that the majority of Grigson’s subjects were found to be without mental illness, and he was therefore not called by the prosecutors. This is certainly possible, and in fact the way the criminal justice system often works, but an assertion like this really needs documentation. Moreover, if it were true, defense attorneys would get Grigson’s evaluation through discovery and use it in their clients defense. They would also subpoena Grigson to testify. Such a scenario would hardly result in the 90+% conviction rate on record.
    Michelle’s observation that Grigson helped convict a man who committed horrible crimes against her family would obviously make her fond of him, but it really tells us nothing. If, say 50% of murder suspects were guilty and Grigson habitually identified every subject as a murderer who would kill again, it is statistically inevitable that all the guilty people would go to the chair (as well as all the innocent). It is also true that a monkey flipping a coin would correctly identify some killers. Michelle’s account contributes nothing to a discussion about whether Grigson practiced in an unethical, unconscionable and despicable manner.
    Thomas’ observation of Grigson selling out for the defense in Richard Lyon’s case additionally points him out as not only unethical, but a hack. Thomas also notes the perfectly reasonable and to be expected fact that two individuals whom Grigson had testified were “certain to kill again,” went on to live perfectly normal and law-abiding lives. Likewise Mike’s report of the Thin Blue Line’s director who cites facts that Grigson was completely, diametrically wrong in his assessment of the two men documented in the film, one of whom (the innocent one), stated that Grigson examined him for all of fifteen minutes, administering only the most rudimentary of examination tools. These are still more observations that Lee Grigson’s assertion at the top of this thread is not only unsupported, but unsupportable.
    David notes, (gushingly; “he left a legacy that no other could follow”), that Grigson loved his wife, LOVED his grandchildren, and that “his family meant everything to him.” In some films Nazis have been shown adoring their pets, tending their gardens lovingly or listening rapturously to classical music. This is all to show us that “these men weren’t monsters”, that they had a “human side.” The fact that the Nazis loved their pets, tended their gardens or listened to classical music proves only that they loved their pets, tended their gardens or listened to classical music. The fact that they dumped cyanide on innocent people made them monsters. I call films that employ such reasoning “Nazi With a Puppy Dog” films. Steven Dutch http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/NaziPuppy.HTM Additionally, David’s post lists nothing supporting his conclusion that Grigson was a pioneer. Unless we consider unprecedented violation of ethical and moral canons pioneering.
    EKJ would have it that the appearance of 150 prominent people including politicians at Grigson’s retirement party “proves” that Grigson “had a positive impact on our legal system.” Are we to assume that these 150 people were board-certified in psychiatry? The saying that “politics is a blood-sport in Texas” isn’t for nothing. The Thin Blue Line clearly documents the political capital to be made by prosecutors, politicians, and law enforcement officers who racked up not only high conviction rates but high death penalty convictions. The fact that these jackals would show up to fete Grigson really only demonstrates the sinister collusion that existed between them.
    “Psych” makes the very useful point that even undergraduate psych majors are aware that (unlike Lee and the elder Grigson would have us believe), it is very difficult to predict behavior and that such predictions are often wrong. Let me refrain, UNDERGRADUATES know this. Textbooks continually repeat this because it is a fact. Did Grigson assume that his knowledge carried him beyond those facts? Unsupportable, delusional hubris. Or was Grigson aware of that truth, but simply chose to deny it for other ends? Damnable.
    Tiffany asks how Grigson is any different than talk show expert doctors who diagnose people without examining or interviewing them. The sad/funny thing here is that she assumes that this talk-show behavior is acceptable when clearly it is not. Exercising incredibly poor judgment, she somehow describes Grigson’s and these folk’s behavior as equivalent. Grigson’s assessments were life or death determinations, whereas talk show talk is just talk. Describing Grigson in admirable terms as a “trailblazer” for this kind of activity is pathetic. It only shows that he was corrupt earlier than the rest. Perhaps Tiffany would like to check back in and give us her appraisal of Senator Bill Frist, the buffoon who incorrectly and ludicrously diagnosed Terry Schiavo from the Senate floor.
    This is a good place to note that Grigson was given an opportunity to evaluate, hypothetically, a deprived black who had a record of several arrests before going to prison at 19 for a violent offense. “What would be your prognosis?” the lawyer asked. Grigson said he saw only more of the same ahead. The lawyer then revealed that the case history belonged to Ron LeFlore, now a star for the Chicago White Sox.
    Emily and Dan give us another Nazi puppy film. Yes, it’s possible to be a great family man and friend as well as a monster. Though Emily and Dan clearly knew Grigson in the former domain, it’s obvious they don’t know what their talking about in the latter. This is amply demonstrated by their description of Grigson as “an individual that tried to do his job to the best of his training and experience.” What I’ve pointed out above (and is amply demonstrated in the public record) is that he did no such thing. He was a discredit to his profession and himself.
    Hilary makes her points far more concisely and compellingly than I. I agree wholeheartedly with all she says, and echo her call for proof of the various claims made by family members.
    In summary I should note that I am a forensic psychologist who has worked intimately with these issues for years. The work is exacting, meticulous and very closely bounded by what we can and cannot do or say. I find the activities (I can’t deign to call it work) of Dr. Grigson to be unbelievably repugnant; a simmering, evil horror.

  18. EJK

    To Hillary who writes
    “If his family members have proof that he ever received genuine accolades from the medical community for his work, I suggest that they post detailed references to the articles in question on this site in order to correct the record…”
    What are you talking about? I don’t see a single word posted by a family member regarding any articles to reference? And how cold blooded are you to attack family members who have lost a loved one??? Your behavior is shocking. I pray you find a good church to join where you may learn compassion and manners.

  19. Dan of Nashville

    In response to (Dr. ?) Mark Davis, I defer to his assumed expertise and clinical assessment of Dr. Grigson’s character and agenda. The persona he portrays, of a manipulative, who obviously attempted, by “Dr” Davis’ position, to deduce an individuals criminal probability, based on that person’s previous conduct of offenses, is certainly cause to pause. Normally I would neither attempt to respond to or defend my position, on any given subject or individual, to such an obvious competent in his chosen field, as “Dr” Davis. However, in all fairness, having lost family members, in the persecution of Jews and the subsequent horrors of the Holocaust, I would ask a certain amount of sensitivity and restraint (as you don’t know me anymore than you assess those Grigson gave testimony against), in referring to my recollections of Dr. Grigson as “Nazi Puppy Films”; And, forgive me, for remembering a man, who always, to my knowledge, was a strong advocate for the civil rights of all.

  20. Benjamin Dover

    He was a pathetic little man, like most of the slack jawed mouth breathers in the south, especially Texasss. He was a monster, a lowbrow piece of shit. The world does not miss this loser who was shunned by true professionals within his field.

  21. Shannon Goodwin

    Gee Benjamin Dover, after reading your post I did a quick search and found that senators, congressmen, judges, attorneys, fellow psychiatrists and the mayor threw him a party for his retirement. These were his obviously his friends. I can’t find anything saying he was shunned by anyone at any time. Are you one of the sociopath’s he testified against or something?

  22. David Kelly

    Having recently learned of Dr. Grigson’s death, I was saddened by the thought that we have lost a professional that was willing to take a stand to protect the public. He took actions that most avoided or viewed distasteful; knowing the ridicule that he would receive.
    I knew the family in the early 70’s, and will always remember the birthday dinner at the Grand Crystal Palace on Swiss Avenue; that was the last time I saw him.
    I applaud his career.

  23. Susan Weems Wendel

    Jan Riley: I saw the picture of the covered bridged that you submitted to the TEXAS CO-OP POWER magazine for the April 2009 issue. I would love to find the location of this lovely bridge since I live in Utley.

  24. Ryan E.

    Even the most Evil of men are capable of loving their families. being a good family man and a good person are often not hand in hand… dont belive me, look at the notorious BTK killer, many people who KNEW HIM claimed he could never have done such monsterous things. That is until he sat in court and admited them.

  25. Life.

    He sure screwed up with Randall Adams didn’t he? No priors, no history of violence, not a damn thing. I wonder how many weren’t quite as ‘lucky’ as Randall thanks to Grigson’s seeming penchant for helping to flip the switch?

  26. C. Doley

    Kudos Dan. Dr. Grigson was a contemptible hypocrite who, history has shown, sent innocent men to die. Words can’t begin to describe what an awful, disgusting man this was. The world is a better place without him.
    But please stop comparing him or his crazy supporters to Nazis.

  27. Patrick J

    The simple fact is that he was discredited by his own professional peers. In looking back to his historical record, it has been shown that on numerous occasions he acted unethicly and without remorse. He had an agenda: to rid society of what he deemed as undesireables. I can completely see where the earlier posting by Mark Davies, makes the comnnection to the behavior of the Nazis. The Nazis thought that they were ridding the world of undesireables as well. It has been shown over and over that Dr. Grigson repeatedly testified about a defendants likelehood to commit more violent crimes, when he never even intervied the person…and was later proved to be wrong. He tetified whenever he was paid to do so..
    I understand that the family is saddened by his death, but it doesn’t change the contemptable life this man led.

  28. Michael Sturdevant

    It is stunning that so many dim-witted lunatics have lined up to send this creepy criminal off in style. It shows what a nation of weaklings we really are. True courage, of the kind embodied by Erroll Morris, is a rarity. The emperor has no clothes. Dr. Death was a fraud and a coward. Now he’s burning in hell. To the good, honest, and honorable family members who remain: Your loss is the world’s gain. May we never forget what this man did so that we may be vigilant in taking care that it does not happen again.

  29. Bill Stough

    I had lunch with Dr. Grigson frequently in the early nineties and was able to discuss a wide range of topics with him. We both had offices in the same building and met because we happened to eat at the same cafeteria on the ground floor.
    Jim Grigson was one of the most intelligent and interesting individuals that I have ever known. He reminded me of the law and order sheriff in the movie, “High Noon”. Tall, stately and completely sure of himself as a protector of society. He had the ability to explain complex issues in simple and blunt language which probably helped his popularity as an expert witness. I probably learned more about human behavior from Jim than from anyone that I have ever known. Even though I do not belive in the death penalty, I still had to respect his grasp of the workings of the human mind and his dedication to what he belived to be his duty.
    What struck me about this man was his raw courage as an individual who testified against people who were criminally insane. There must have been hundreds of unstable, dangerous people who held a grudge against him. A glance at some of the hate messages that have been left on this site illustrates what he must have faced on almost a daily basis.I once asked him if he feared for his safety and asked him if he was uneasy about the possibility of being stalked by some crazy person with a score to settle. Without hesitation, he answered, “I m not the least bit worried about facing down some coward who kills innocent people”.
    Like him or hate him, one still must respect Grigson for being one of those rare individuals who spoke his mind even when it was unpopular with his own professional society.
    WMS

  30. Khan

    A career that was based on prostituting his ‘expertise’ for monetary gains, convicting with absolute certainty innocent men and getting expelled from the American Psychiatric Association.
    Applaud, we must.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.