(6 of 6)
Facing the jury and speaking forcefully, Lifton reinforced the views of West and Orne that Patty was coerced into taking part in the bank robbery. When he interviewed her in January, Lifton said, Patty "had a classic post-survivor's syndrome—feeling that she should not have done those things she did, that she should have been stronger, feeling very ashamed." Asked if there was any way a human being could defend himself against coercion-persuasion, Lifton said: "There is none. If one's captors are sufficiently determined and motivated, they can break down anyone."
Lie Detector. The psychiatrist said that Patty—"not yet formed as an adult, vulnerable to every kind of fear"—was less prepared to face the coercion than the former P.O.W.s and that in some ways her experience was worse than theirs. He noted that none of the men he had examined had been blindfolded the length of time she had, and that they had been confined in larger cells. "Patty Hearst was dehumanized," Lifton said. "She told me, 'I felt like a thing in the closet.' " When she visited the closets where she had been held prisoner, Lifton testified, "she said, 'My God, how could they do that to me?' "
This week the prosecution gets its chance to present expert witnesses of its own. One psychiatrist who is expected to challenge Patty's story is Dr. Harry L. Kozol, 69, director of a treatment center in Bridgewater, Mass., for sexually dangerous people. A second likely Government witness is Dr. Joel Fort, 46, a San Francisco physician and criminologist who specializes in drug and mental-health problems. He has appeared as an expert witness at some 270 trials, including those of Charles Manson, Timothy Leary and Lenny Bruce. An unorthodox figure, Fort last week gave newsmen a letter requesting that his appearance in court be kept secret because he did not want to contribute to sensationalizing the event. Curiously, the same letter included background material on himself.
Bailey plans to end his defense of Patty this week, abandoning plans to introduce the results of a lie-detector test taken by his client. Although the defense counsel claims that the polygraph test supports Patty's veracity, he is unwilling to put it in the record, fearing that the prosecution would then get a chance to question Patty further about the missing year.
Once the jurors get the case, with all its conflicting and confusing testimony, they essentially will have to decide—as Judge Carter pointed out—whether or not Patty was telling the truth. However the jury finds, the debate is sure to continue. If Patty is convicted, the verdict is likely to be appealed. If she is acquitted, she still faces the prospect of a state trial in Los Angeles on charges—armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and kidnaping—stemming from the melee at Mel's Sporting Goods store. Patty Hearst's long day in court may be just beginning.