There is no doubt in my mind that Garrett Brock Trapnell was insane. The James Bond of bankrobbers, the book details his life story. How he grew up with a drunk mother and a military father. How he joined the army, wanting to go to war, but was discharged after a failed suicide attempt that took one of his kidneys.
How in his adulthood, after his father's death, he spent his years acting like a military man. Planning and strategizing robbies all for the same end: nothing. He would rob a bank then leave to start a new life, be happy, then he would feel the walls closing in so he would leave to rob another bank. And thus the cycle kept going and going and going...
He masterminded a $100,000 jewelry store heist in Freeport, Bahamas and was married to six women at the same time. Heck, while reading this book, it was difficult to keep the names of his many wives in order since they all start to blur together.
But what he was known for was the insanity defence. Truly he must be insane, and thus they would declare him insane, send him to an asylum, then he would be declared sane and walk out. Was he ever really insane? Was he faking it?
He was knew what he was doing was wrong, but I think he was paraoid to the point of insanity. Whatever he needed, whatever was best for him, required him to kept away from society, lest he go into a supor and rob another bank. Thus it all came ahead when he skyjacked an airplane for reasons that make more emotional sense than logical.
As I read this book, I looked up Mr. Garrett Brock Trapnell and wondered if the book would detail his life in prison. How a friend of his tried to break him out of jail, how that friend's daughter would later come to break him out again, how he spent his last days in solitary.
But it didn't. Then I realized the book was published in 1972, and the first attempted breakout wouldn't happen until 78.
The story never ends, the author makes it clear. Yes, the story of Gary Trapnell ended in 1993 when a lifetime of smoking caught up to him, but that's a footnote. This is the story of the insanity defence and what it means to the courts.
Should psychatrists and psychologists and the like spend their days arguing in the courts, screaming that the other is a fool, in front of a pool of laymen jury? Or should psychologists be cast aside and a person's sanity be determined by a board after the fact?