My opponents' psychiatric experts tried to prove in court what cannot be proved, using senseless arguments, evasion, filibustering, and very often contradicting their own arguments. If one were to accept the evidence of all them, the conclusion would be that everybody suffers from mental disease.

It is unclear why I was interned and what the psychiatrists did to cure my "disease". Upon reading the court transcripts, it is equally unclear what the "experts" wanted to prove in court: was I an acute or chronic mental patient -- was I lucid and intelligent, as was written in medical records, or was I in a "decomposing mental state", as the "experts" stated in court? Which disease did I suffer of? In the medical records, half a dozen diagnoses were made, most of them non-existent in medical terminology. The "experts" added another half a dozen like "disintegration", "lucid folly", "decomposition", "chronic family disfunction", et cetera, which only created more confusion.

They tried to prove that the psychiatrists implicated applied "medical science and art" par excellence and wrote medical records on my "second to none" hospitalization, but their presence in the court per se established that the records were void. If the original records had been written competently and had utilized clear language, they would have been accepted as such. And as Ryle explains, "If the expressions (in our case the records) under consideration are properly used, their employers (my adversaries) must already know what they mean and do not need the aid or admonition of philosophers" (experts) ... then "the expressions are not being intelligently used and to that extent their authors are just gabbling parrot-wise."⁹⁵ The outcome of the experts' presence in court was to waste time and confuse the issue.

I insisted through my lawyers that the medical records were the only evidence as to (1) whether I was mentally sick and dangerous before and during my hospitalization and as to (2) whether my hospitalization was legally and medically justified. I also opposed any witnesses or experts testifying hors dossier⁹⁶ -- including those on my behalf -- because I was confined, not for what would be said in court, but rather for what was written in the records during my stay in the hospitals.

As a physician myself I know that the doctors have a professional and a legal obligation to write records. This is particularly so when an involuntary hospitalization is involved. Or, as is written in judge Boudreault's references, "Serious difficulties may result from the omission of information in the record which ordinarily would be recorded. The omission could be taken as evidence that a particular event did not occur."⁹⁷

One presumes that the physicians are trustworthy and well taught on how to write patients' records. Thus, we accept whatever the psychiatrists have written in my records. The records must clearly show (1) why the patient was hospitalized; (2) what kind of examinations and tests he passed and the results; (3) the diagnosis, treatment, and course of the patient's disease must be scrupulously transcribed; and (4) the eventual recommendation and rehabilitation after hospitalization may be recorded.

During the six months of my internment they had more than enough time to perform appropriate examinations and write records according to medical science and rules. By bringing witnesses and experts to "analyze" the records, the psychiatrists actually proved their incompetence and duplicity.

All are lunatics, but who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher.⁹⁸

Ambrose Bierce

1.- Dr. André Villeneuve, was the principal expert psychiatrist on behalf of my opponents. He testified for four days in the court. In addition, he assisted on two previous days in court. He said he had read and "analyzed" the medical records as well as six volumes of transcripts of previous testimonies.

Yet the fact that Dr. Villeneuve spent four days stuttering and filibustering on the questions which could be explained in a couple of hours, speaks for itself -- that he was too interpretative, and that he was always right -- attributes imputed to me in the medical records as "symptoms" of my "paranoia".

As I mentioned above, if we apply to Dr. Villeneuve his own yardsticks and attitude in the court, we would find out that the professor is more "mentally sick" than anybody else.

As we know, psychiatrists have expressed a large spectrum of opinions on mental diseases, and in general on psychiatry. Some of them, like Dr. Thomas Szasz and many other "antipsychiatrists", are of the opinion that mental diseases do not exist and psychiatry does not have the same value as do other branches of medicine. Dr. E. Fuller-Torrey even denies the medical model to psychiatry⁹⁹.

I believe that by stuttering and avoiding answers to specific questions, and filibustering, Dr. Villeneuve succeeded only in protracting the trial, contrary to my efforts to simplify the matter and shorten the trial.

Dr. Villeneuve was unable or rather unwilling to answer a simple question as to whether it was important to examine my ex-wife's mental condition from the hospital records of l'Enfant Jésus Hospital, where she had been hospitalized as a mental patient. To every question he was answering vaguely, starting his responses with "it depends..".

While I pressed my attorney to insist upon a clear-cut and definitive answer, Dr. Villeneuve was stuttering and trying by all means to avoid answering the question. In the middle of the cross-examination even Mr. Justice Boudreault lost his patience and said:

Doctor Villeneuve, may I interrupt you. You are asked a relatively simple question, then for half an hour¹⁰⁰ you did not reply to the question. The lawyer asks you, when a patient is a physician, he is not a poor novice who does not have any knowledge of (psychiatry), who tells you ... my ex-wife is ... sick, she was hospitalized. She attempted to commit suicide herself, then she was hospitalized. According to your clinical experience, is there not enough light, like Ford's headlights, to flared up in your mind, which might say that possibly this lady (Mrs. Delev) has a problem?

Despite a long dialogue between the judge and Dr. Villeneuve, the latter did not answer the question. It is very interesting to read all of the doctor's interrogations. They show clearly, in spite of above remarks, that the judge was actively helping the man.

Although Dr. Villeneuve did not answer the question whether we should investigate my ex-wife's mental state or not, Mr. Boudreault pretended at the end of the dialogue as if he had answered the question, allowing the shrink to continue his nonsense.

Dr. Villeneuve's interrogations also show that most of the time my lawyer was being humiliated for his inadequate French.

During this testimony the judge suggested that my ex-wife was suffering from a "serious pathology". A suicide attempt was in his opinion a very serious condition. Later in his Judgment, like a good magician, using Orwellian doublethink, he reversed his own opinion, now accepting the doctor's testimony that the "information in the document" indicated "a benign condition" of my ex-wife!

My impression was that the judge had "enough light" to make a conclusion that the doctor is a fraud. All of Dr. Villeneuve's interrogations are useful reading for making conclusions about his and the judge's reasoning and ethical standard.

A letter expressing sentiments of affection and consideration for my family was described by him as a letter of a mentally disturbed man.

Aside from making long and evasive interpretations, Dr. Villeneuve obviously revealed a muddled "perturbation of thought", to use the expression of Dr. Dufour, signatory of my "medical certificate". If one took into consideration his attitude in court (his ironic smile, winking back to the audience, showing his readiness to mock the tribunal), one could find in his behaviour those "symptoms" attributed to me.

As well, Dr. Villeneuve imputed "delusions" to me which the judge carefully summed up in the Judgment.

Apparently I was blaming the universe for plotting my internment. There is nothing in the medical records about this.

As a matter of fact, if we read the medical records and testimonies of the involved persons, and the Judgment as well, one could find that a conspiracy existed. Dr. Dionne, the Lyonnais', Dr. Grenier and Dr. Dufour conspired to intern me. Therefore, the conspiracy was a fact.¹⁰¹

To support his argument that I was suffering from a delusion that the "universe" was against me, Dr. Villeneuve cited Dr. Juretic as an example of how I had accused him as being a part of "universe" against me, although he was my friend.

It was later proved in court that it was indeed Dr. Juretic who had joined the "universe" (the psychiatrists) by coercing me and creating an unbearable life for me, although I was a so-called "voluntary" and "not psychotic" patient. He went farther than the original perpetrators -- he even forged the medical records to cover up his and his friends' blunders!

Dr. Villeneuve imputed to me a delusion of being persecuted by the "universe", meaning in general the psychiatrists who "were willing to help", but I supposedly considered them to be persecutors ("enemies"), which they were in fact.

The remark about the "universe" could be also reversed because I had never complained about the "universe" but only about rogues, like Dr. Villeneuve. By considering himself and the psychiatrists involved as the "universe", Dr. Villeneuve indicated that he suffered from delusions of grandeur.

In addition, the delusions attributed to me were never proved. No one else even mentioned that I ever believed in a "conspiracy by the universe", except this witness.

Maintaining false beliefs about me, perhaps Dr. Villeneuve suffered real delusions himself.¹⁰²

"Where jargon turns living issues into abstractions, and where jargon ends up competing with jargon, people don't have causes. They only have enemies. Only the enemies are real." These words were written by Padraic O'Malley in his book, Uncivil Wars: Ireland today. These words could be applied to my "situational depression", which was provoked by psychiatrists like Dr. Villeneuve.

Being in a "situational depression" created by the psychiatrists and being harassed by them, how could any reasonable human being consider that they were helpful?

Apart from Dr. Villeneuve's interpretations, which were unusual, one could find a positively abnormal condition when analyzing him from a strictly psychiatric point of view.

I deliberately point out that Dr. Villeneuve was literally stuttering in court. It is a fact, which is evident from the transcripts, and more particularly from his tape-recorded testimony (which I possess), that at 47 years of age, Dr. Villeneuve is really heavy stutterer.

In the respectable text-book Modern Clinical Psychiatry¹⁰³ by Lawrence C. Kolb, M.D., there is the following description of stuttering:

They (disorders in speech) may result either from physiological disturbances in the organs of phonation, their innervation or the brain processes concerned with speech or as the result of interference through emotional instability.

Usually considered to have a significant relationship to emotional disturbance is stuttering.

This disturbance customarily has its beginning in childhood and, when persistent, seriously impedes the child's social adaptation and development.

The persistent stutterer is considered to have a conflict between passive and aggressive drives, which is reflected in his speech (emphasis added).

In the Psychiatric Dictionary¹⁰⁴, we can read the following:

Some authorities hold that stuttering is the result of an organic brain disease or physiological defect.

Whether originating in a physiological disorder or not, in its subsequent stages, the symptom is predominantly a psychic condition that causes shrinking from speaking through fear of not succeeding.

From the psychoanalytic point of view, stuttering is regarded as due in most instances to displacement of anal libido onto the throat and mouth and onto the act of word-forming. The anal-sadistic stutterer equates words with faeces, and the expulsion or retention of words means the expulsion or retention of faeces. Further, words acquire the same omnipotence they had in the infantile stage; "words can kill" and the stutterer is constantly anxious about using so dangerous a weapon. While anal sadism forms the core of the problem, other component instincts typically contribute to the symptom. Phallic impulses, for example, often lead to an equation of speaking ability with potency and of disability with castration (emphasis added).

It is not my intention to claim that Dr. Villeneuve or any of the other implicated psychiatrists are paranoid or mentally ill. I cited the above quotation to ask, how would the psychiatrists feel if they were to undergo a "psychiatric examination" by applying their own yardstick. My intent is only to prove that the psychiatrists and their witnesses, are simple deceivers -- including Dr. Villeneuve, a Professor of Psychiatry with a curriculum vitae of 32 pages. And he was the one who taught my son psychiatry and medical ethics!

2.- Dr. Harry Grantham, Professor of Psychiatry, is an expert who described in great detail how to conduct a psychiatric examination, how to write medical records, and how to apply treatment. Yet, in my case, his principles were not implemented by the psychiatrists who wrote my records. The very fact that he appeared in court and referred to the evidence not in the medical records (hors dossier hospitalier) was a clear indication that he considered the records to be either invalid or insufficient to prove that my internment was justifiable.

There is one statement of Dr. Grantham that was reported, which raises the issue of a delusion of jealousy:

According to this witness (Dr. Grantham), it is unimportant whether the fact that relates to the delusion has really happened or not. A person may suffer of a paranoia tied to a delusion of jealousy and have a ex-wife who deceives him or may suffer of a delusion of persecution and be in fact persecuted.

I am at a loss for words upon reading a statement like this in the Judgment. It is not clear whether the judge is in agreement with Dr. Grantham that some people are mentally sick because they are suspecting wives who deceive them. In that case,any informed cuckolds could be mentally sick, which sounds bizarre to me. If I understand it correctly, I accused my ex-wife of being unfaithful, although she may be unfaithful, because I "may suffer of a paranoia tied to a delusion of jealousy and ... may suffer of delusion of persecution ..." For this kind of reasoning, there exists a nice expression in English -- "a diarrhoea of words".

My "jealousy", of course, was in connection with my ex-wife's drinking with sailors, which she admitted. Yet, Dr. Coulombe, the third "expert" in my case, on being questioned on how he would react if he found his wife drinking with sailors, responded: "I would be shocked."

If I share with "normal" people, like Dr. Coulombe, the same feelings regarding our wives' attitude (drinking with sailors), why have my feelings should become abnormal?

We can read in the Psychiatric Dictionary about the "validating" of delusion :

What is characteristic of the delusion is that it is not shared by others; it is an idiosyncratic and individual misconception or misinterpretation. Further, it is a thinking disorder of enough import to interfere with the subject's functioning, since in the area of his delusion he no longer shares consensual validated reality with other people.¹⁰⁵

With "may" and "may not" we cannot prove anything. In the medical records, which the professor praised in court, it never was mentioned that I was feeling persecuted, though I really was being persecuted at the time.

Dr. Grantham and his like-minded friends were acting like someone who had stolen honey and later was waving his hands compulsively as if to defend himself from bees even though there were none around. The very presence of Dr. Grantham in court is proof that he is my persecutor. A considerate man would not come in court to impute me with everything and anything!

Dr. Grantham's court testimony on how to proceed with a psychiatric examination and how to write medical records is written on 15 densely typed pages. The judge condensed it to four pages. Yet we can see that Dr. Dufour, before he took the decision to incarcerate me, wrote four lines on my examination. The most astonishing fact is that the contents of those four lines have turned out to be a hoax.¹⁰⁶

Another point on which both Dr. Grantham and the judge failed miserably is on the question of emergency cases and the writing of records.

Dr. Grantham "explained" and the judge agreed with the explanation, that Dr. Dufour was confronted by the "elements of urgency". It was proven beyond the slightest doubt that Dr. Dufour had at least fourteen days time to proceed with his examination and write proper medical records on my "sickness".

I refrain from further comment regarding Dr. Grantham's "testimony" except to point out one more example of how he justified the involuntary confinement of patients: He stated merely that in my case there were "possibly ... elements of potential dangerosity".

In this respect, Mr. Justice Boudreault referred to Hertz, Dangerousness -- Postdict and Predict, in which we read that no physician can actually predict or postdict dangerousness. Thus, the judge is in contradiction with his own reference.

2.- Maurice Coulombe, a psychiatrist practitioner, is in agreement with Dr. Grantham's "methodology".

I will not repeat Dr. Coulombe's comments about Grantham's "methodology", but I wish to point out that the last paragraph of his testimony clearly shows the oblique nature of much of the "evidence" brought by the experts of the defending psychiatrists. He admitted that the psychiatrists involved should have given attention to the mental condition of my ex-wife, and "he doubts whether the ideal of making a full inquiry about her has been reached."

As I have mentioned above, to the direct question of how he would react if his wife was meeting an unknown sailor, Dr. Coulombe responded: "I would be shocked. I would be made a bit suspicious as a result ... ". His reaction would then be the same as mine. Dr. Coulombe and his friends used a double standard: "Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi" (What's permitted the divine is not allowed to swine).

In brief, the testimonies of experts are as birds of the same feather: oblique, evasive, reflecting either a "perturbation of thought" or a wish to mock the court. The way in which the psychiatrists defended themselves and tried to prove the reasons for my hospitalization, and the role of their experts, reminded me of the reasoning of G. Orwell in 1984:

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink, it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.¹⁰⁷

My opinion is that the psychiatrists and their friends surpassed G. Orwell's prediction. The same could be ascribed to the judge, who accepted the reasoning of my opponents as cogent "proof" that I was sick.

In Prisoners of Psychiatry by B.J. Ennis, page 19, Dr. Szasz wrote:

When will we recognize -- and publicly identify -- the medical criminals among us? Or is the very possibility of perceiving many of our leading psychiatrists and psychiatric institutions in this way precluded by the fact that they represent the officially "correct" views and practices? By the fact that they have the ears of our legislators and judges? And by the fact that they control the vast funds, collected by the state through taxing the citizens, which finance an enterprise whose basic moral legitimacy is here called into question?

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men.

Abraham Lincoln

... surgical and medical procedures were considered paramount in determining whether the medical man in a given circumstances had been negligent. But gradually the courts awoke to the so-called 'conspiracy of silence.' No matter how lacking in skill or how negligent the medical man might be, it was almost impossible to get other medical men to testify adversely to him in litigation based on his alleged negligence. Not only would the guilty person thereby escape from civil liability for the wrong he had done, but his professional colleagues would take no steps to insure that the same results would not again occur at his hands.¹⁰⁸

1.- Dr. Josif M. Divic, professor of psychiatry, was in a position to give a crushing testimony on my behalf. Since he was a proficient psychiatrist, supported by many experts from "Grand Rounds" of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, no judge would object to his opinion. Unfortunately, through his disappointing testimony in court, he cast an unfavourable light on himself. More about Dr. Divic's role read Chapter V.

2.- Dr. Sebastian K. Littmann, professor of psychiatry, stated that my condition had not been pathological. He considered "it unlikely that an individual showing the symptoms listed on the Certificate ... be such as described by Dr. Dorion."

Dr. Littmann was the one who had edited my version "Hospitalization or Jail Sentence without Trial".¹⁰⁹ (I still have his handwritten draft.) He also wrote certain supportive letters to my lawyers. Therefore, he had the opportunity to become familiar with my hospitalization. He, as well as Dr. Divic, were criticized by Mr. Justice Boudreault for relying on a summary of my medical records, even though a good summary should be adequate for a psychiatric expert. He promised to return to testify after reading the records, but did not return.

3.- Dr. Peter Roper, psychiatrist. The appearance of this psychiatrist in court was a shock. I saw him for the first time in my life in court. He was subpoenaed by my lawyers without my knowledge and consent. Without reading the records and examining me, he came allegedly to testify that I was unjustly interned. When I asked him how he can testify at all if he did not make any effort to see me, he shrugged mumbling that he read the records of the hospitals. I was persistent and asked him to tell me what he knew about the records. To my astonishment, he was unable to do so. Of course, I advised him not to appear in court without having read them. Despite my strong opposition, my lawyers stubbornly introduced him in court. At the very outset of his testimony Dr. Roper admitted that he had not read the records and, naturally, my opponents' lawyers with good reason reproached him. The appearance of Dr. Roper, as I had expected, created a very peculiar situation. If he asserted that the psychiatrists could not make decisions and draw conclusions without an examination, it would have been more than good enough. However he was maintaining that psychiatrists could discuss and make diagnoses without seeing mental patients, which was exactly what my opponents were claiming.

Dr. Roper's position was especially comparable with that of Dr. Grenier, who had made the diagnosis and the decision for my internment without seeing me. His appearance in court clearly helped my opponents. They could not have had a better defender for themselves.

As a matter of fact the psychiatrists, Dr. Divic, Dr. Littmann and Dr. Roper, were in a good position to give strong support to my cause. They could have been more convincing since they had a chance to examine both me and the records, and eventually some persons qualified to give opinions on me (my children, my ex-wife (why not!), my friends, family. Unfortunately, my experts were very reluctant, or rather they almost admitted their incompetence, while my opponents with pompous poppycock were impressing the audience as if they knew what they were talking about. All three of my experts were in a hurry to finish their testimonies as soon as possible.

I met several other psychiatrists who, I thought, would support me. They were not invited to testify in the court:

4.- Dr. Dimitrije Pivnicki, professor of psychiatry at McGill University and father-in-law of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, is a Serbian from Yugoslavia. After noting that I could not place much hope on Dr. Divic to help me, I contacted Dr. Pivnicki. We had a few discussions about my internment and myself. I had heard nothing but the best about the doctor. I had the impression that he was extremely attentive, reasonable and a peaceful man. He wrote a very competent and supportive letter to my lawyer Goulston, in which he stated:¹¹⁰

... I am absolutely convinced that they (the involved psychiatrists) do not justify either the admission, the transfer from one to another hospital, or the continuous treatment. They do not show what was really done, who ever made a reliable psychiatric diagnosis, why the man was treated at all, and what was achieved through hospitalization. ... and finally we don't find the reasons why the patient has been discharged at that given moment! Has he improved? Has he been cured?

According to the letter he had even expressed a readiness "to re-discuss the whole matter once more", but my lawyers never contacted him.

After reading this letter I went to Dr. Pivnicki's office and showed him additional medical records, actually forgeries. Dr. Pivnicki was shocked at seeing the very clumsy falsifications of the records. At that moment he exclaimed: "But they are really criminals. If I were somebody, I would tear apart their diplomas." (This conversation I have recorded on a tape).

Although "reluctant" according to this letter, I think he would have made a good expert witness. I had the distinct impression that my lawyer, Mr. Goulston, and later Mr. Wolofsky were not resolute enough to ask him for help. As a consequence, he did not appear at all in court.

5.- Dr. G.F.D. Heseltein, chairman of the department of psychiatry, University of Western Ontario, who read the records and "expressed total amazement" at my treatment, was not invited to testify in court.

6.- Professor Dr. Thomas S. Szasz. After reading many of his works I decided to see him, and my two visits were easy to accomplish since Syracuse, New York, where he is teaching, is not far from Toronto.

Both meetings were short, not longer than 15-20 minutes. At the time of our first meeting my English was very poor, but I explained my situation with the help of my medical records which I had already received through my first lawyer Mr. Goulston.

I had the impression that he understood what I expected from him. Without paying attention to the records, he gave me the address of Halina Cirilo of a Human Rights Commission affiliated with the Church of Scientology in Toronto. Although I had never heard about them before and later I had some reservations about the church, I did as Dr. Szasz advised me.

I had expected some collaboration between Dr. Szasz and the Commission. Since my English was not adequate, I had expected the Commission to employ someone who would translate the records and eventually help Dr. Szasz to undertake a rigorous examination of my case. Again, because of my poor English I spent considerable time trying to convince the representative of the Commission to find a dependable translator and to eventually contact Dr. Szasz.

To my pleasant surprise, I was referred to another commission affiliated with the same church operating in French-speaking Quebec.

People whom I met there did not have high formal educational backgrounds, most had Grade 12. I also noticed they were young and not well informed on law and psychiatry. Still, I found them extremely enthusiastic and tenacious in fighting against psychiatrists' abuse of mental patients. In my case, those people did an impressive job. Thanks to them, my case appeared in the news media (TV, radio, newspapers) in Quebec Province.

A young man, named Robert Labré, went on CBC channel 5 Television in Quebec City, where he presented my case as a striking example of shameless abuse and molestation by the psychiatrists involved in my hospitalization. Brandishing the medical records in his hands, he presented the psychiatrists as incompetents and tormentors rather than physicians. He particularly stressed how they falsified the medical record in a ridiculous, inane way.

The presentation was a considerable attainment for my cause and, on the other hand, it was very offensive and embarrassing for the psychiatrists and hospitals involved, all the more because Mr. Labré and Mr. Lawson, the host of the show, were not experts in psychiatry and legal proceedings concerning the commitment of mental patients. It is amazing how vulnerable psychiatry is to criticism by lay persons. I expected the psychiatrists to react and protest about the show. Afterwards I was curious to know from Mr. Lawson whether there had been some intervention by the psychiatrists but he victoriously answered, "not at all". The show was my first big moral triumph. My sons and I enjoyed watching it.

In addition, the Commission wrote a forceful letter warning Mr. Claude Forget, Minister of Social Affairs, about the existence of "a serious situation" in the psychiatric hospitals of Quebec and asking the Ministry "that an inquiry be conducted and that the patients' files of psychiatric hospitals be investigated by an independent body." Mr. Forget ignored the letter. It suffices to say that I was very disappointed.

I met Dr. Szasz again, to advise him about my continuing unsatisfactory situation and I asked him about the possibility of writing and publishing my case, thus to achieve public rehabilitation. He returned my manuscripts with the suggestion that I request my lawyers to write him and ask for his help. I did, I asked the lawyers (Selig and Wolofsky) to communicate with the doctor, but I was told that Dr. Szasz could not serve as an expert in Canada because he was a resident of the United States.

On the other hand I met many other physicians: Dr. Boris Ulehla, psychiatrist, Dr. Predrag Vujnovic, Dr. Iva P. Mihic, Dr. Josip Gamulin. The last three physicians, although general practitioners, were very supportive, especially Dr. Vujnovic, who was tireless in writing all kinds of petitions in order to help me to extricate myself from the ugly situation. Not one of those physicians was contacted or asked to help in court. I contemplated and proposed to my lawyers that we engage a psychiatrist from Yugoslavia to testify on my behalf. My suggestions were ignored by my lawyers without explanation.

Even though I had suggested some experts, I am of the opinion that the medical records, which describe the events about my internment in detail, are by far the best evidence. A good, sensible lawyer would need a little help from a psychiatrist to clarify the "technical terms" in psychiatry and the dirty manoeuvres used in a case like mine. By introducing our own experts, we actually allowed the other side to bring in a considerable amount of extraneous material.