Adding files

This commit is contained in:
anaximenes 2022-01-12 05:48:53 +05:30
parent 48cafe47a4
commit fc9ef38dbc
20 changed files with 6881 additions and 0 deletions

BIN
1st.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

266
1st.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,266 @@
# Note
When I wrote my first version of <u>Truth versus Lies</u>
I had not had access to the written reports (Qb
and Qc) of Scharlette Holdman and her investigators. Later,
when I received copies of those reports, I had doubts as to
whether Scharlette and her investigators had accurately
recounted what their interviewees had said, and I also
wondered whether they had manipulated the interviewees in
order to elicit the kinds of statements that the
investigators wanted. But I felt I needed to deal with the
investigators' reports in the book in order to make sure
that no one would think I was suppressing important
information. I therefore rewrote <u>Truth versus Lies</u>
, inserting a good deal of discussion of material
from the investigators' reports.
I now wish I had left most of that material out of the book
altogether, because its reliability is open to so much doubt
that I consider it worthless.
In Appendix 10, written in 1998, I outlined some reasons for
being skeptical about the reports of Scharlette Holdman and
her investigators. A few years later, Scharlette and my
friend, the late Joy Richards, were both involved in the
disposition of my cabin, which had been moved from Montana
to Sacramento and was then in the custody of the Federal
Defenders Office. At that time Scharlette told Joy that the
State of California had claimed the right to take possession
of the cabin. Actually it was not the State of California
but the Federal Government that had claimed the cabin, as
Scharlette should have known. Scharlette never explained
this error on her part; in fact, she never afterward
answered any communication from Joy or from me. Needless to
say, this incident intensified my doubts about Scharlette's
ability to collect and report accurate information.
But there is something else that is much more important. At
several points in <u>Truth versus Lies</u> I
cited a declaration (Da) that my father's old friend, the
late Ralph Meister, had signed at the urging of Scharlette
and her collaborators. Much of the declaration was true, but
some parts were false, and it was not clear how Ralph could
have known even the true information contained in the
declaration. So in July 2005 I sent Ralph a copy of his
declaration and invited him to comment on it. In response he
sent me a signed statement (reproduced below) in which he
repudiated the entire declaration.
Clearly Scharlette and her collaborators manipulated Ralph
Meister into signing a declaration that he would never have
signed if he had been free of improper influence. It
therefore seems very probable that Scharlette and her people
similarly manipulated some of the other individuals whom
they interviewed. Consequently, the reader should disregard
all information in this book that is attributed to
Investigator #2 (Scharlette Holdman), Investigator #3 (Gary
Sowards), Investigator #5 (Charlie Pizarro), or
Investigator #6 (Susan Garvey). The information to be
disregarded includes, among other things, all information
cited from Qb and Qc, since Qc consists entirely of
information provided by Investigator #2, and most of the
information in Qb was provided by Investigator #2,
Investigator #5, Investigator #6, or other investigators
working for Scharlette Holdman.
On the other hand, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of
the information provided by Investigator #1 (Betsy
Anderson), Investigator #4 (Jackie Tully) or Investigator #7
(Nancy Pemberton), none of whom worked closely with
Schalette.
I ought to rewrite <u>Truth versus Lies</u> to
eliminate all dependence on information reported by
Scharlette Holdman and her collaborators, but for the
foreseeable future I won't have time to do that. So, for the
time being the book must remain in its present from, though
with the foregoing warning to the reader.
Ted Kaczynski
May 15, 2007
## \[Transcription by TJK, 5/16/07\]
March 5, 2006 Sunday
Refutation of Declaration
To Whom it may concern:
On July 18, 2005, Theodore John Kaczynski asked me in a
personal correspondence to reconsider a declaration I made
on February 2, 1997. This document is written in response
to that request. The information and opinions herein
represent the truth to the best of my knowledge and correct
the declaration that while in fact has been signed by me,
upon re-reading, I now feel strongly misrepresents my
statements and the true meaning of those statements.
So much of the declaration is false statements it is
difficult to separate what is true. Paragraphs 1 through 4
are true.
I strongly object to the indiscriminate and inflammatory use
of the word intellectual which appears 12 times in this
short statement; true intellectual, intellectual subjects,
to be an intellectual, intellectual world, intellectual
image, intellectual thought, intellectual giant, this
"almost from the day he was born" rubbish, intellectual
development, intellectual ideals, again intellectual
development, successful intellectual, intellectual
investment, intellectual achievement, I propose to strike
every use of the word, intellectual. In the declaration, it
is obviously misused and meant to mislead.
Theodore Kaczynski's mother Wanda wanted her sons to be
smart just like every mother wants their children to be
smart and successful in life, to have the things she never
had, just like every mother who has had an especially
difficult life and wants to improve herself and provide an
example for her sons and steer them in the right direction.
After her sons were older, Wanda went to college and became
a school teacher. Her sons both pursued a college education.
Wanda followed a generally accepted method of raising
intelligent children. In my experience with testing
children, many many parents wanted to get their child into
kindergarten or first grade early, as soon as the child
passed intellect barriers. My wife, Stella, had a
friendly competitiveness with Wanda since their oldest
children were born months apart and they compared progress.
My objection is that the declaration portrays Wanda as an
extremist, a neurotic who "seemed to have only an
intellectual (dirty word) investment" in her son, once
again, rubbish. She was a loving and devoted mother and I
never meant otherwise.
In paragraph 7, the first sentence is obviously impossible
and once again, inflammatory. Also, she was not "obsessed
with his intellectual development." In the third sentence,
all mothers record milestones, what is religious about baby
books?
Paragraph 8 is another complete fabrication, total out of
control fabrication. I repeat, the last sentence, "She
seemed to have only an intellectual investment in Teddy
John" is pure mean spirited nonsense.
I totally reject paragraphs 9 and 10. These are not my
words, they sound like a script from a soap opera on
television. In fact, considering knowledge I did have of the
Kaczynski's home life during these years, I could never have
reasonably made the statements in paragraphs 9 and 10, and
if I did state anything similar to what was signed, I now
realize I was being completely biased and unjustly
judgemental. The words "badly injured", "feared social
contact", "social deficiencies", "lost control and verbally
abused", "lied to protect", "intense pressure", are not what
I remember at all. No one but Teddy John could have known
exactly how he was feeling, and the last two sentences are
pure conjecture, more soap opera script. Finally, and most
importantly, I never once felt that the Kaczynski family
needed any sort of counseling and I never recommended they
seek professional help. That fact in itself says more about
their homelife than all the hypothesizing and colored
statements in this faulty declaration.
Paragraph 11 is close to accurate. My wife, Stella Meister
greatly admired Theodore for the manner in which he lived
alone in the mountains. She corresponded with him for many
years and looked up to him as a true aesthete. She more than
I understood what joy and solace Theodore found living in
the mountains. "Protection from social deficiencies", Stella
certainly never ever would have thought that. "Autonomy in
the absence of other social skills represents salvation."
What great philosopher thought of that one, it does not
apply here. Unfortunately, the last sentence of the
declaration is just too profound.
In short, I believe that it would be best to refute the
declaration I signed in its entirety, and in the future
think twice before I sign a declaration written by someone
else who may have questionable motives rather than seeking
the truth. I hereby do exactly that. I, Ralph K. Meister
refute the entire attached declaration that I signed on
February 2, 1997.
Sincerely,
Ralph K. Meister
\[signature: Ralph K. Meister\]
Witness: \[signature: Janice Powell(?)\]
Witness: \[signature: Amy Incendela\]
Date: 3/19/06
# TRUTH versus LIES by Ted Kaczynski\*
"An odd principle of human psychology, well known and
exploited. . . holds that even the silliest of lies can win
credibility by constant repetition."
--- Stephen Jay Gould \*\*
\* Copyright 1998 by Theodore John Kaczynski
\*\* "The Paradox of the Visibly Irrelevant," Natural
History, Volume 106, Number 11, December 1997/January
1998, p. 12.
# Foreword
Though it's the first part of the book, this foreword is
the last part to be written. Its purpose is only to tie up
some loose ends.
To begin with, while this book contains a great deal of
autobiographical material, it is not an autobiography. At
some later time I hope to tell the real story of my life,
especially of my inner development and the changes in my
outlook that took place over the decades.
Before my arrest I never thought there was anything unusual
about my long-term memory. I knew that I remembered things
more accurately than my parents or my brother did, but that
wasn't saying much. Since my arrest, however, several
members of my defense team have told me that my long-term
memory is unusually good. (See Appendix 11.) This is their
opinion; I am not in a position to prove to the reader that
it is correct. There are a few items in this book for which
I have relied entirely on memory and which someone who is
not locked up would be able to check against documentary
evidence. If anyone should take the trouble to dig up the
relevant documents, I hope I will prove to have been right
with regard to most if not all of these items; but, whether
that turns out to be the case or not, the number of such
items is too small to provide a secure evaluation of my
long-term memory.
However, the point I want to make here is that even if the
reader doubts the accuracy of my memories or my honesty in
reporting them, enough of the material in this book is
supported by documentary evidence and/or corroborating
testimony to establish that media reports about me have been
wildly unreliable, and that in its most important aspects my
account of myself and my family relationships is
substantially correct.
As for my use of names, I almost always use the full names
of persons who have spoken about me to the media. When
referring to persons who have not spoken to the media I
usually give names only in abbreviated form.
Some of the facts and incidents that I recount in this book
will be embarrassing to the persons concerned. However, I
assure the reader that my motive has not been to embarrass
anyone, but to bring out the truth and correct false
impressions, for which purpose it has sometimes been
necessary to demonstrate the unreliability of an informant
or show the factors that may have distorted his reports. If
I had wanted to embarrass people there are other facts I
could have related that would have caused a good deal of
additional embarrassment.

BIN
c16.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

638
c16.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,638 @@
# CHAPTER XVI
Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of
himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does
is morally indefensible. ¹
\- Janet Malcom
L.M. Singhvi... relates the anecdote of an Eastern European
journalist who said:"... our newspapers, like those of the
rest of the world, contain truths, half-truths, and lies.
The truths are found on the sport pages, the half-truths are
found in the weather forecasts, and the lies are found in
everything else." ²
\- La Jornada
It must be the very first thing you learn in journalism
school: Why do research when you can make things up? ³
\- David Gelernter
At the end of Chapter I we saw how Serge F. Kovaleski and
Lorraine Adams of the *Washington Post* lied about my
"hospital experience" by misquoting my mother's Baby Book.
The *New York Times*, too, lied in its May 26, 1996 article
about me. The author of the article, Robert D. McFadden,
wrote that the Unabomber was described by a witness as
having "reddish-brown hair." ⁴ But the description that the
FBI obtained from the witness in question stated that the
Unabomber had reddish-*blond* hair. ⁵ So why did McFadden
make it reddish-*brown*? Obviously because he found it
inconvenient that I didn't fit the description of the
Unabomber. Since the fact that the Unabomber had
reddish-blond hair had been massively publicized, it is
scarcely conceivable that McFadden's error could have been
inadvertent.
In the very next paragraph McFadden makes another statement
that has the earmarks of a conscious lie. He states that
when the Unabomber was spotted by the witness he "panicked"
and "fled." ⁴ There was no basis for this statement. The
Unabomber's coolness in leaving the scene had already been
publicized. ⁶
Many journalists do not hesitate to lie to individuals in
order to get material for stories. As an example I quote the
following from a letter from Sherri Wood, librarian at
Lincoln, Montana:
"\[O\]ne day a reporter came in \[to the library\] from the
Sacramento Bee and asked for an interview and we told him
no. Then he asked us for just some general information about
you and the arrest, and the town, just for background
information. He said that it would be off the record. I said
ok, and went to file books as we talked. After a while I
heard Mary ask him why he was writing if this was all off
record and then he said he had changed his mind and decided
to put it on record. We both immediately shut up and then
asked him to leave, after we told him what a rat we thought
he was. He did then go on to print an article and made it
sound like I gave him an interview voluntarily. ... I do not
trust the press ... ." ⁷
Unmistakably conscious lies about concrete facts are
relatively infrequent in the media. False statements are
extremely common, but it is clear that many of them are
simply the result of negligence, and it is often impossible
to distinguish the intentional falsehoods from the negligent
ones.
In the May 26, 1996 *New York Times* articles about me, I
counted at least 42 clear errors of fact, in addition to the
two intentional lies that we cited earlier. To give just a
few examples: The *Times* states that my father "loved to go
hunting." ⁸ To my knowledge he hunted once, and only once,
in his life. The *Times* states that my mother was "familiar
with science." ⁸ In reality she doesn't know as much science
as the average fifth-grader. The *Times* states that the car
I bought in 1967 was used. ⁹ In fact, it was new. The
*Times* has my father's employment history badly garbled .
¹⁰ Etc., etc., etc.
Other national news sources didn't do much better than the
*New York Times*. Thus *Time Magazine* wrote that I had "an
outhouse out back" and a root cellar below my cabin, that I
had volumes of Thackeray, that I sometimes stayed inside for
weeks at a stretch ¹¹ (all of which are false). . . the
errors just go on and on and on.
The errors we've just been citing are probably inadvertent
ones that resulted merely from excessively sloppy reporting,
since it isn't clear what motive the media would have for
lying in these cases. But when false statements are made
that tend to incriminate me, or tend to make me seem
repellent or despicable, it is often difficult to tell
whether the falsehoods are accidental or malicious. For
example, when *Time* reported that I had "bomb manuals" in
my cabin ¹² (which is false), were they lying purposely or
were they just relaying false information that they had
received from some FBI agent? When *Newsweek* wrote," Ted
continued to take handouts from his brother - a few thousand
dollars in money orders over the years," was the falsehood
intentional or only the result of sloppiness in collecting
facts? ¹³
Thus far I have been discussing only false assertions made
by the media themselves concerning concrete factual matters.
But there also have been falsehoods of other types. One of
these types I call the "irresponsible quote." A newspaper or
magazine protects itself from the accusation of falsehood by
means of little phases like " Jones said..." or "according
to Smith... ." For example, the *New York Times* wrote:
"Butch Gehring . . . said he once heard \[Ted\] complain
about his costs rising to $300 from $200 a year," ¹⁴ which
is false. The *Times* also quoted a former neighbor of mine,
\[Le\] Roy Weinberg, to the effect that as a kid I "didn't
play," ¹⁵ a statement so implausible on its face that it
should have aroused any reporter's suspicion. What is much
more serious, the *Times* quoted irresponsible statements
that tended to incriminate me: "Stacie Frederickson, a
Greyhound agent in Butte, remembered ticketing Mr.
Kaczynski - 'a geeky-looking guy' - about 15 times on
intercity buses south to Salt Lake City or west to the
Coast." ¹⁶ Frederickson's statement is false. "At a Burger
King restaurant next to the bus terminal in Sacramento, Mike
Singh, the manager, remembered \[Ted\]. He was carrying what
appeared to be an armful of books. He had a sandwich and a
cup of coffee and left. Mr. Kaczynski took a room at the
Royal Hotel, next door to the bus station. A desk clerk,
Frank Hensley, remembered him because he stayed there
periodically in recent years, usually in spring or summer,
for three days to a week at a time. He used the name Conrad
to sign the registration book... ." ¹⁷ Singh's and Hensley's
statements also are false. If Frederickson, Singh, and
Hensley didn't simply invent their stories, then they have
confused me with someone else. In earlier chapters we
discussed many other false statements about me that have
been quoted in the *New York Times* or other national news
sources, and - it must be emphasized - there have been so
many others (even in the *New York Times* alone) that it
would be impractical for me to try to mention all of them. I
haven't even tried to count them.
As experienced journalists, the *New York Times's* reporters
and staff writers are well aware that, especially in highly
publicized cases, there are a great many people who will
make statements that are false or grossly distorted, either
because they are stupid, or because they want to see their
names in the paper, or for some other reason. Yet the *New
York Times* and other national and local periodicals have
quoted the uncorroborated words of any jerk who has taken it
into his head to talk to the media, and they have done so
without warning their readers that the quoted material is
highly unreliable.
Among the large numbers of unverified statements that are
available, do the media select for quotation those that give
a story the slant that the editors want? They probably do,
though it is difficult to prove it. It is worth noting that
almost all of the false statements that have been published
about me in periodicals of national circulation have been
negative or neutral; only a rare few have been positive.
There is yet another way in which the media purvey
falsehood, and in this case there cannot be the slightest
doubt that intentional slanting is involved. Journalists
will make negative statements about an individual that are
so vague that there is no way they can ever be definitely
proved or disproved, yet by repeating such statements over
and over again throughout an article they can give their
readers a decidedly false impression of the individual in
question.
Robert D. McFadden's article in the *New York Times*
provides an excellent example of this technique. The article
appears under the headline," The Tortured Genius of Theodore
Kaczynski." ¹⁸ In reality I am neither tortured nor a
genius. McFadden proceeds to assert that in my Montana
cabin I "watched dying embers flicker visions of a wretched
humanity." ¹⁸ I did nothing of the kind. The next paragraph
states that mathematics was the "sole passion of \[my\]
life" and that it was "suddenly dead ." ¹⁸ Actually,
mathematics was never the sole passion of my life, and my
interest in it declined not suddenly but gradually, over a
period of years. McFadden then describes my undergraduate
days at Harvard as "humiliating." ¹⁸ They had their bad
points, certainly, but I never felt that they were
humiliating. He describes the lines at the corners of my
mouth as "obstinate," ¹⁸ but there is no rational evidence
that they have anything to do with obstinacy. In his fifth
paragraph, McFadden speaks of my supposed "instabilities",
"obsessions," and "rigidities" ¹⁸ without presenting any
rational evidence that I was unstable, obsessed, or rigid,
and he goes on to say that I "deteriorated" until my family
"did not recognize" me, ¹⁸ which is sheer fantasy. The
article rambles along endlessly in the same vein.
Most of these assertions are so indefinite that it would be
virtually impossible ever to prove them false. How would one
prove that one has no "instabilities" or that one has not
"deteriorated?" The words are just too vague. It might be
possible to disprove a few of the assertions if one wanted
to take the trouble; for example, I might be able to
document that fact that mathematics was never the sole
passion of my life. But I would have to devote several pages
to this seemingly trivial point, and in doing so I would
look ridiculous because I would appear to be making a
mountain out of a molehill. I would look even more
ridiculous if I tried to prove that I am not "tortured",
since the word was never meant to be taken literally anyway;
it was used only for its emotional impact. Yet emotional
language and indefinite assertions of the kind used by
McFadden, when repeated over and over, can quite
successfully portray an individual as a repellent sicko.
Needless to say, the *New York Times* is not the only
periodical that uses this technique. The method is applied
quite generally in the news media.
Before my arrest - that is, before I had the opportunity to
compare what I know to be the truth with what the media say
\- if someone had told me how dishonest the media are I
would never have believed it. Since my arrest I have talked
with a number of lawyers, investigators, jail personnel, and
law enforcement officers who in their daily work have seen
the difference between what they have personally experienced
and what the media report, and they have all told me that
most journalists have little regard for truth and little
hesitation about embroidering their stories. As one very
able lawyer expressed it to me, "These people are animals -
animals!" See Appendix 7.
Why do journalists stretch the truth as far as they do? For
one thing, the news media are supported mainly by
advertising, and to sell advertising space they need a large
audience. They know that the public is more attracted by a
dramatic story that portrays someone as a hero or a villain
than by a sober, careful, balanced account.
For another thing, the media are controlled by people who
are committed to the system because it is from their
position in the system that they get their power and their
status. Consequently, the media constitute a kind of
cheerieading squad for the system and its values.
Journalists who don't cooperate with the system's propaganda
line are not hired by major news outlets and that is why the
news media uniformly support the basic values of the system.
It is also why they portray as a viilain or a sicko anyone
who appears to be a threat to those values.
In my case, the FBI quickly succeeded in convincing the
media (through dishonest tactics that we will discuss later)
that I was probably the Unabomber. Journalists must have
realized that my identification as the Unabomber was
uncertain, since the FBI is known to have railroaded
innocent people in the past, but they knew that they could
attract a bigger audience by jumping on the bandwagon and
trumpeting to the world the capture of the supposed
Unabomber than by publishing a sober account that retained
rational skepticism. ¹⁹ Moreover, the Unabomber had attacked
the basic values of the system in a strikingly effective
way; hence, once they had accepted the assumption that I was
the Unabomber, the media had to maintain the propaganda line
by depicting me as a repellent sicko.
During the first months following my arrest I repeatedly
asked my lawyers about the possibility of suing some of
these people for libel, but they told me that it probably
wouldn't be worth the trouble, because the very volume of
publicity about me had made me into a "public figure," and
the libel laws concerning "public figures" made it very
difficult for any such person to win a libel suit.
The statement I made earlier, that the major news media
uniformly support the basic values of the system, may be
questioned by some readers who notice that it is not
uncommon for the media to criticize various aspects of the
system. But there is a difference between questioning
*aspects* and questioning *basic values* of the system. The
media criticize, for example, corruption, police brutality,
and racism whenever they appear in the system, but in doing
so they are not criticizing the system itself or its basic
values, they are criticizing diseases of the system.
Corruption, police brutality, and racism are all bad for the
system, and by criticizing them the media are helping to
strengthen the system.
On infrequent occasions the major news media do allow
*cautious* criticism of some of the system's basic values.
²⁰ But such criticism is expressed in more-or-less abstract
terms that keep it remote from the sphere of practical
action. The attitude is always, "Isn't it too bad that
such-and-such; but after all we just have to accept it and
live with it as best we can." No one is ever encouraged to
do anything that might actually upset the workings of the
system.
"' If you mean to tell me,' said an editor to me, 'that
*Esquire* tries to have articles on important issues and
treats them in such a way that nothing can come of it - who
can deny it? '" ²¹ - Paul Goodman, *Growing up Absurd*
Criticisms of the system that appear in the media constitute
one of the safety valves that help to relieve the average
man's resentment; and moreover they provide the illusion of
independent-minded journalism. Thus they help to deaden the
impulse to real, substantial, fundamental dissent.
\*\*\*\*\*\*
After my arrest on April 3, 1996, FBI agents and officials
began disclosing to the media massive amounts of information
concerning the alleged evidence found in my cabin, and other
supposed evidence against me - though much of the
"information" was in fact false. Even if all of the
information had been true, its release would have been
unethical and contrary to regulations. The government itself
admitted this:
"The United States acknowledges that government personnel
have disclosed to members of the press certain details of
the search of Kaczynski's cabin and of the government's
investigation. Although there is no evidence that these
disclosures were made with the intent to influence legal
proceedings \[ha!\], such disclosures were improper and
contrary to Department of Justice policy." ²²
FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno
must have known about the massive disclosures to the press
within a day or so after they began. In fact, Freeh issued
the following directive on April 4:
"To protect the integrity of this investigation and
prosecution, I am reminding you of our 'bright line' policy,
and there is to be no discussion with the media regarding
any aspect of this case. It is not only distressing to both
me and the Attorney General, but to every person who has
worked so tirelessly on this matter over the last several
years, to read and hear investigative information in the
press. It is destructive to provide that information and
must not continue to happen \[sic\]." ²³
But the disclosures continued for several days. There cannot
be the slightest doubt that Louis Freeh and Janet Reno could
have stopped most of the disclosures immediately if they had
wanted to, because this was not just a matter of a dribble
of information leaking out covertly; the disclosures were on
a massive scale. ²⁴ The lawyer who was then representing me,
Michael Donahoe, told me that FBI agents involved in the
search were openly taking items of alleged evidence from the
cabin, showing them to representatives of the media, and
explaining (not necessarily truthfully) what they were. ²⁵
Yet Freeh and Reno allowed the disclosures to go on until,
on April 17, Freeh issued a statement:
"I ordered an investigation early this month of whether any
FBI employees have leaked investigative information from the
UNABOM case. ... Unauthorized disclosure of investigative
information or other confidential material will lead to
immediate firing from the FBI and possible prosecution." ²⁶
By that time, my attorney Michael Donahoe had already filed
a motion to dismiss the charges against me on the grounds
that the publicity had irrevocably destroyed my right to a
fair trial. ²⁷ In denying this motion, Judge Charles C.
Lovell relied in part on the statement of Louis Freeh that
we have just quoted:
"Judge Freeh \[Lovell wrote\] has ordered an investigation,
and he has promised dismissals and prosecution for any
government officials releasing confidential information." ²⁸
On August 29, 1996, my attorney Quin Denvir wrote to Robert
Cleary, Special Attorney to the U.S. Attorney General and
chief prosecutor in my case:
"Dear Mr. Cleary:
"On April 4, 1996 \[sic; should be April 17\], FBI Director
Louis J. Freeh issued a directive stating, *inter al*, that
the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility was
conducting an investigation into the leakage of information
regarding the Unabom case and that 'unauthorized disclosure
of investigative information or other confidential
information will lead to immediate firing from the FBI and
possible prosecution.' In denying Mr. Kaczynski's Montana
motion regarding the leakage of information, the district
court relied upon that statement of Director Freeh. (RT, p.
13.) I am writing to inquire as to whether the FBI Office of
Professional Responsibility has conducted its investigation
in this regard and whether any FBI personnel have been fired
or otherwise disciplined as a result of that investigation."
²⁹
Mr. Denvir has told me that as of mid-October, 1997, he has
received no answer to this letter.
It's obvious that Janet Reno and Louis Freeh never seriously
intended to prevent the unauthorized disclosures or punish
the agents responsible for them. The disclosures were made
with the acquiescence (if not the covert encouragement) of
Reno and Freeh, because the Justice Department knew that the
warrant for the search of my cabin had been issued without
probable cause. By trying me in the media and creating a
public presumption of my guilt, they hoped to make it
difficult for a judge to suppress the alleged evidence
seized from my cabin on the grounds that the warrant was
invalid.
\*\*\*\*\*\*
As long as we are on the subject of the FBI, I can't resist
passing along an anecdote that was recounted to me by a
police officer whom I believe to be intelligent and
reliable, and who told me he was an eyewitness of the
events.
A local police agency located a drug dealer in whom the FBI
was particularly interested and passed the information on to
the Feds. The FBI and the local agency then set up a
stake-out around the hotel where the suspect was living and
waited for him to come out. After they'd waited for several
hours, one of the FBI cars pulled away and drove off. Then
another FBI car left and then another. The local police
lieutenant who was in charge of the stake-out wondered what
was happening, so he took off after the FBI cars, pulled one
of them over, and asked what was going on. The FBI agents
answered that it was five o'clock and they weren't allowed
to work overtime without permission from their supervisor.
So they had just taken off without bothering to notify the
local police involved in the stake-out.
I am not, of course, in a position to vouch for the accuracy
of this account, but I find it easy to believe in view of
other evidence I've seen of the incompetence of the FBI.
I'm told that most local police forces that have worked with
the Feds are contemptuous of them. It seems that the FBI is
good at just one thing, namely, propaganda. It has succeeded
in creating an image of itself as the world's most effective
law-enforcement organization, and, considering the
difference between the image and the reality, this
constitutes a truly brilliant demonstration of the
propagandist's art.
## NOTES TO CHAPTER XVI
1. Janet Malcolm, *The Journalist and the Murderer*, Vintage
Books, Random House, 1990, p. 3.
2. *La Jornada Semanal*, May 18, 1997, p. 7. *La Jornada
Semanal* is a supplement inserted in the Mexican newspaper
*La Jornada*. The passage quoted has, of course, been
translated from Spanish.
3. David Gelernter, *Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber*,
The Free Press, 1997, p. 51.
4. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 24, column 4.
5. (Pd) Application and Affidavit for Search Warrant, p. 80,
paragraph 154.
6. For example (Hf) *Newsweek*, April 15, 1996, p. 40: "The
woman banged on the window, motioning the man away. He
calmly picked up the bag and left." Media reports of the
Unabomber's calmness are supported by the FBI's reports of
its interviews with the witness. (Nc) Police-FBI Interview
of Tammara Fluehe, February 22, 1987, p. 5: "FLUEHE stated
that the individual never seemed in a hurry, and walked at a
normal pace." (Na) FBI 302 number 12, November 18, 1993, p.
1:"FLUEHE said that when she yelled to GAY the individual
placing the device on the ground looked up at her... he then
slowly stood up, turned around and walked toward 300 East
Street." (Nd) Memorandum of Interview with Tammara Dawn
Fluehe on December 16, 1993:
"FLUEHE stated the individual who placed the device ...
knew he was being observed, but did not appear to be
startled or afraid and the individual slowly turned around
and walked away. ... This individual seemed very confident
and in no hurry when he left the area."
I am not especially trying to defend the Unabomber's
courage. I am concerned only to show that McFadden is a
liar.
7. (Cb) FL Supplementary Item #14, letter from Sherri Wood
to me, February 2, 1998, p. 1. Early in April of 1998 I
asked Jeff Severson, a legal assistant on my defense team,
to call Sherri Wood and ask her if it would be alright for
me to use the quotation to which this footnote refers. She
gave her permission orally. Later she sent Mr. Severson a
letter in which she slightly corrected what she had written
in FL Supplementary Item #14. Instead of saying that the
reporter had "changed his mind and decided to put it on
record," she wrote:" He stated he had decided that it should
be up to his boss if what we were saying should be off the
record or not." See (Cb) FL Supplementary Item #15, letter
from Sherri Wood to Jeff Severson, April 8, 1998. There are
no other discrepancies between these two letters of Sherri
Wood.
8. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 22, column 3.
9. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 23, column 3.
10. Same, p. 23, column 4. The truth is that my father had
been working for a Chicago company called Cushion-Pak. In or
around 1966, Cushion-Pak sent him to Lisbon, Iowa to start a
small branch that was called Iowa Cushion-Pak. Iowa Cushion-
Pak was doing well when the parent company called my father
back to Chicago. After working for a few years in Chicago
for Cushion-Pak, my father resigned and took a job with Foam
Cutting Engineers because it was much closer to his house in
Lombard. The owners of Foam Cutting Engineers were not the
same as those of Cushion-Pak and Iowa Cushion-Pak. In fact,
Foam Cutting Engineers and Cushion-Pak were competitors.
11. (Hg) *Time*, April 15, 1996, pp. 40, 41. I never had an
outhouse. I did have a root cellar, but it was not
underneath my cabin; it was more than a hundred feet away. I
had no volume of Thackeray. I could not have stayed indoors
for weeks at a stretch even if I had wanted to, because I
had to fetch water, cut firewood, tend my garden, gather
wild greens, hunt for meat and so forth.
12. (Hg) *Time*, April 15, 1996, p. 41 wrote that my home
had "two walls filled floor to ceiling with Shakespeare and
Thackeray and bomb manuals." In reality, no wall of my cabin
had more than a single shelf of books; I had perhaps two or
three volumes of Shakespeare, not more; no Thackeray; and I
had no bomb manuals whatsoever.
13. The quotation is from (Hf) *Newsweek*, April 22, 1996,
p. 32. I accepted "handouts" from my parents. Every one of
them was matched by an equal handout to my brother, except
for the final handouts in 1991, amounting to $7,700. See
Chapter VII, pp. 211, 212 . As to the $7,700, brother could
not have complained that he was getting short-changed, since
at that time I renounced all claim to my share of our
parents' estate, so that the entire amount (a matter of some
hundreds of thousands of dollars) would go to my brother on
our mother's death. See (Ca) FL #461, letter from me to
David Kaczynski, July 20,1991, pp. 8, 9.
I never asked for nor accepted any "handouts" from my
brother. In Chapter IX, pp. 260-262, I described how he
offered me money for medical treatment in case I needed it
and how I declined his offer. In 1985 my brother offered to
give me $200 for bus fare so that I could visit him in
Texas. (Ca) FL#302, letter from David Kaczynski to me, April
or May, 1985, p. 4. I answered," Your offer to give me
$200.00 for bus fare is very generous - but I couldn't
accept it." (Ca) FL#304, letter from me to David Kaczynski,
late spring or summer of 1985, p. 2. In late 1994 I asked my
brother for two loans totalling $3,000. My brother did lend
me this money, but a loan is not a "handout". It is true
that I was unable to repay my brother at the time when I had
told him I hoped to do so, but it is also true that the loan
was well secured, so that he was in no danger of losing his
money. I changed the deed to my land so that it was held by
my brother and me in joint tenancy, and if I had died it
would automatically have become his sole property. I also
sent my brother notes in which I stated that the land was to
become his property if I did not repay the loans by a
specified date. According to a local realtor, the land could
have been sold for about twelve or fifteen thousand dollars.
All this is confirmed by my correspondence with my brother,
(Ca) FL#473 through FL#483, and by (Ga) Deed #6.
14. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 24, column 1.
There was an article (Hd) *Missoulian*, April 3, 1997 (the
*Missoulian* is the newspaper of Missoulia, Montana),
authored by one Mick Holien, that was based on an interview
wit Butch Gehring and his wife Wendy. It Contained the usual
nonsense. It is distressing that a supposedly responsible
newspaper would publish material like this solely on the
word of people whom any experienced journalist should have
recognized as chuckle-headed and unreliable.
15. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 22, column 3. A
photograph published in (Hg) *Time*, April 15, 1996, p. 46,
shows me playing in sandbox in our back yard in Evergreen
Park in 1954. I very often played in our back yard, and
Leroy Weinberg must frequently have seen me doing so, since
his back yard began only a few feet beyond the point where
our back yard ended.
16. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 24, column 1.
17. Same, p. 25, column 1.
18. Same, p. 1.
19. The media often inserted little inconspicuous phrases in
their articles that would enable them to claim that they had
not actually said that I was the Unabomber, but it is safe
to say that most readers scarcely noticed these phrases and
received essentially the message that I *was* the Unabomber.
For example, (Hg) *Time*, April 15, 1996, p. 37: "The man
who seems to be the Unabomber was arrested - another example
of the way in which a demon, hitherto concealed, may shrivel
when brought into sunlight. The suspect's family turned him
in because they recognized his writings - a killer betrayed
by his own prose style."
Despite the phrase "seems to be" and the fact that I was
called a "suspect," to all but the most careful readers this
amounted practically to a statement that I was the
Unabomber.
20. See, for example, (Hg) *Time*, August 28, 1995, pp.
50-57, 'The Evolution of Despair," by Robert Wright. The
author does hint at practical action, but none that would be
in conflict with the basic needs and values of the system.
21. Paul Goodman, *Growing up Absurd*, Vintage Books, 1960,
Chapter II, pp. 39-40.
22. (Pb) Government's opposition to Donahoe's motion, p. 4.
23. Same, p. 3.
24. (Pa) Donahoe's memorandum in support of motion to
dismiss, Appendix A and Appendix B.
25. For confirmation see (Cf) Letter from Quin Denvir to
Michael Donahoe.
26. (Pb) Government's opposition to Donahoe's motion,
Exhibit C.
27. (Pa) Donahoe's motion to dismiss.
28. (Pc) Denial of Donahoe's motion, pp. 7, 8.
29. (Ce) Letter from Quin Denvir to Robert Cleary.

BIN
ch10.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

813
ch10.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,813 @@
# CHAPTER X
Let's begin with two media reports of the Ellen Tarmichael
affair. Following a paragraph that gave a badly garbled
account of how I came to work at Foam Cutting Engineers in
Addison, Illinois, the *New York Times* wrote:
"[Ted's] supervisor was Ellen Tarmichael, a soft-spoken
but no-nonsense woman who is still a production manager with
the company. One employee, Richard Johnson, called her 'a
wonderful boss, the best I've ever had,' and added:
'She's always kind-hearted and nice to people. I can see
why somebody would get interested in her.'
"Ted Kaczynski became interested in late July 1978. ...
[Actually it was mid-July or earlier. ¹]
"It was a Sunday, and he had gone for a walk. 'He happened
to see her car,' David recalled. 'She was filling the gas
tank. [This is not quite accurate. ²] I don't know exactly
what transpired. He actually went to her apartment and
played cards with her and her sister and her [sister's]
boyfriend.'
"Later Ted came home. 'He was obviously in a good mood,'
David said. 'He told me he had gone to see Ellen, that
they had spent the day together... and that some gestures
indicating affection had passed between them. I was very
happy about that.'...
"They had two dates, Ms. Tarmichael recalled. She said he
seemed intelligent and quiet, and she accepted a dinner
invitation in late July. It was a French restaurant, David
said, and Ted 'ordered wine and he smelled it [false: no
wine was ordered], he made a big deal of it.' David added,
'He had a good time.'
"Two weeks later, they went apple-picking and afterward
went to his parents' home and baked a pie. That was when
she told him she did not want to see him again 'I felt we
didn't have much in common besides our employment,' she
said. [This is no doubt true as far as it goes, but it is
only part of the truth and by no means the most important
part.]
" 'Ted did a total shutdown,' retreating into his room,
David said. He also wrote an insulting limerick about Ms.
Tarmichael, made copies and posted them in lavatories and on
walls around the factory. He did not sign the limerick, but
his relationship with the woman was known. [How? I never
told anyone about it except my father, brother and mother.
It could have become known at the plant only through
blabbing by my father, by my brother, or by Ellen
herself.]
"David confronted his brother. 'I was very, very angry,'
he said. 'Part of me was disappointed. He was so close to
being integrated in the most primal rite of integration. He
had an interest in a member of the opposite sex, and to have
him go back to this kind of angry, inappropriate behavior -
to the family it was embarrassing, adolescent kind of
behavior.'
"David told him to cease the offensive conduct. But Ted put
the same limerick up the next day, above David's desk
[actually I put it on the machine he was working with].
David told him to go home. [That is, he fired me, which he
could do because he had become a foreman by that time.]...
"David said Ted wrote Ms. Tarmichael a letter that 'had
elements of apology about it.' But the investigators said
the letter, which probably was not sent [it *was*
sent - ³] partly blamed the woman for what had happened and
said Ted had considered harming her." ⁴
This is how the *Washington Post* described the affair:
"Sometime before June 23, 1978, Ted wrote saying he needed
money. They told him to come work with Dad and David at the
Foam Cutting Engineers Inc. plant." ⁵
Here is another one of those seemingly minor distortions
that the *Washington Post* no doubt will claim is accidental;
yet the slight misstatement seriously misrepresents what
actually happened, and, as is usual with the media's
misstatements, it tends to make me look bad. Readers will
of course interpret the *Washington Post's* statement to mean
that I wrote home asking for money and that my parents
told me that if I wanted it I would have to come
and work for it. In fact, I did not write my parents asking
for money; I asked, on my own initiative, whether it was
likely that I could get a job at Foam Cutting Engineers.
This is proved by the letters that I quoted in
Chapter VII, pp. 211, 212.
The *Washington Post* continues:
"Ted Sr. was a manager, and David was Ted\'s boss." ⁵
Both statements are false. My father was not a manager but a
sort of jack-of-all-trades who worked only part of the year
fixing the machines, building jigs, and troubleshooting
generally. David was the boss neither of Ted Sr. (my father)
nor of Ted Jr. (me). When I started at Foam Cutting
Engineers my brother was only an ordinary worker. Later he
was promoted to foreman of the evening shift - but I worked
on the day shift, so that he was not my boss. As I remember
it, the shifts overlapped to some extent; the evening shift
started at some time in the late afternoon before the day
shift left. That was why my brother and I were at work at
the same time and he had an opportunity to fire me. Since he
was not the foreman of my shift, I was in doubt about
whether he had the right to fire me, but Ellen confirmed the
firing. I'm not certain that I remember correctly the
overlapping of the shifts and the exact authority that my
brother had at the moment of the firing; but that my account
is approximately correct is confirmed by an entry in my
journal that was written on the very day of the firing:
"This afternoon, I went over to where my brother was
working, pasted up a copy of the poem before his eyes, and
said, 'OK, are you going to fire me?' Of course, he did.
Wanting to make sure that the firing was official (Dave is
night boss and I am on the Day crew) I went into Ellen's
office and asked her if the firing was official. ...[S]he
said that... she would have to uphold the firing." ⁶
To proceed with the *Washington Post* Article:
"Soon after he arrived at the family home, then in Lombard,
Ill., Ted had a date with a co-worker named Ellen
Tarmichael. Wanda and Ted Sr. were thrilled. After two
dates, Ellen lost interest. Ted, in a rage, posted insulting
limericks about her at the plant. David had to fire his own
brother, a predicament he now sees as 'foreshadowing what I
had to do later' in turning Ted in to the FBI. Ted locked
himself in his room for days." ⁵
The last sentence is at best misleading. All members of my
family took an angry and accusing attitude toward me after
the incident, and consequently, for the next two or perhaps
three days, when I was at home I spent most of my time in my
room rather than with the family - as I'm sure the majority
of people would have done under similar circumstances.
Most of the time my door was not locked. Within a few days
I went out and got another job. ⁷
The rest of the paragraph and the following two paragraphs
of the *Washington Post* article are wholly false and reflect
only my mother's inability to distinguish truth from her
own fantasies. The next paragraph refers to the letter that
I wrote Ellen Tarmichael on August 25, 1978 (the letter is
dated) and showed to my family by way of explanation either
on the 25th or the 26th:
"Ted came out of the room with several written pages in his
hand, his attempt to explain himself. He wrote that Ellen
had been intentionally cruel to him. None of them
[the family] felt that was even remotely true. [That's
false!] At the end of the missive,
he repeated his insulting limerick, said David, 'like he
wasn't going to take it back. No matter what.'" ⁵
This is either another lie or another error on my brother's
part. I saved a carbon copy of the letter, and the
insulting limerick is repeated nowhere in it. ⁸
\*\*\*\*\*\*
Now here is the full and true story of the Ellen Tarmichael
affair.
When I started work at Foam Cutting Engineers, Ellen was the
day shift foreman and therefore my immediate superior. At
first I did not find her sexually interesting because, while
her face was attractive, her figure was not. As I wrote in
my journal, "She has a beautiful face but a very mediocre
figure (too much fat on her ass thighs" ⁹ But as I got to
know her I found that she had a good sense of humor and was
apparently a very nice person; and, as I wrote, "she is
very attractive because she has *charm*, her personality, so
far as it is exhibited to the world at large, is very
attractive, she is apparently very intelligent, and probably
quite competent." ¹⁰ She seemed very friendly toward me
and, rightly or wrongly, I thought she liked me.
I'd had very little contact with women for several years,
and I'd had no relationship with one for fully sixteen
years, since I'd broken off with Ellen A. This rendered me
very susceptible, with the result that within two or three
weeks of starting at Foam Cutting Engineers I got infatuated
with Ellen Tarmichael - as my journal records. ¹⁰
As I explained in Chapter III, p. 83, ever since the painful
experiences of my adolescence I had found it extremely
difficult to make advances to women. In this case I found it
even more difficult than usual because Ellen, my father, my
brother, and I were all working at the same shop, so that,
if I made advances to her and was rejected, I would feel
shamed before my own family - who were not tolerant of any
weaknesses or mistakes on my part. I couldn't seem to get up
the nerve to ask her out either at work or by telephone, so
one Sunday afternoon I looked up her address and took a
stroll in that direction with the intention of making her an
unannounced visit, ¹¹ assuming I didn't chicken out, as I
probably would have done. But by sheer chance I happened to
meet Ellen along the way - at a gas station, though the
meeting was a bit more complicated than what my brother
described to the *New York Times*. ¹² She greeted me
cordially, I told her I'd been going to drop in on her, she
invited me into her car and "she drove me to the apartment
that she shares with her sister Liz. Liz was there with her
boyfriend George; but they shortly left to play golf so that
I had a pleasant conversation of 2 or 3 hours with Ellen.
She told me a good deal about herself... . [S]he has a
streak in her personality that would be attractive if it
were not so strongly developed; but as it is, I think it
repels me more than attracts me; it is a kind of egotistical
streak, or a need for superiority and dominance. You would
never guess from he[r] usual behavior that she has such a
streak; but she told me that when she was a kid (she was the
second child in the family) she had a tremendous need to do
better than her elder brother... in all activities
whatsoever. In every sport, in school, etc. She would
practice and practice a sport all by herself until she could
beat her brother. She claims she succeeded so well that she
thoroughly demoralized her poor brother. She says that up to
a couple of years ago she believed she could do anything.
She seems to be conceited about her job and overestimates
her importance to the company. She says she intends to be
president of the company some day. Yet she says all these
things in a gentle and feminine manner, not in a boastful or
aggressive way. ... Liz and George had returned... we all
played pinochle until after 11 PM. ... [Ellen] drove me
home. When we arrived, I said, 'Am I being too aggressive if
I ask for a goodnight kiss?' She averted her eyes and moved
her head...as if she were hesitating. Then she said
'alright.' (I suspect she really had no hesitation about
kissing but was only trying to make a certain impression.)
Then she leaned over toward me for the kiss and we had a
nice big juicy delicious kiss with firm pressure. Now, I am
so very inexperienced in these matters that I am in a very
poor position to judge, but it did seem to me that she
kissed me somewhat aggressively; at least, she had her mouth
on mine before I was even ready for it. I said in a soft and
rather fervent tone, 'Oh, I like you!' She gave the curious
reply: 'You can't say that. You don't know me.' then we
said goodbye. I didn't think much about her reply at the
time, but it seems particularly curious in view of a rumor
that my father told me about today: It is said that Ellen
never goes out with any man more than once or twice." ¹³
Actually, I had overheard my father telling my mother the
same thing a few days earlier; see below.
When I got home (i.e., to my parents' house) after my visit
with Ellen, I went to my brother's bedroom and told him
about my experiences of the day. He seemed oddly
unresponsive; he showed no emotion, said little, and asked
no questions. I then said, "A few days ago I heard Dad
telling Ma that Female 16 says that Ellen goes out with a
guy a couple of times and then you never hear any more about
it. Have you heard anything about her?" My brother said he
had heard nothing definite, only that there was "something
funny" about Ellen in her relations with men. ¹⁴ The next
day I asked my father about her and he told me directly (as
indicated above) that it was rumored that she never went out
with any man more than a couple of times.
Before my visit with Ellen at her apartment she had been
invariably kind, obliging, and friendly toward me, but from
the time I showed that I had a sexual interest in her a
certain inconsistency manifested itself in her behavior
toward me. Now and again she would make a remark that had a
certain bite to it, not enough so that it could definitely
be called rude, but enough to make me wonder.
From my journal:
"July 29 [1978]. Yesterday I took Ellen Tarmichael to an
expensive restaurant for supper." ¹⁵
The table conversation was pleasant enough, except that
Ellen gave further
indications that she had an excessive concern with power,
and maybe even a sadistic streak:
"[S]he...said to me that she was a 'very vindictive
person' and would do anything 'no matter how underhanded'
to get revenge if she wanted it... ." ¹⁶
When we left the restaurant,
"[S]he...invited me to her apartment, where, she
hastened to add, we would not be alone. Actually we *were*
alone for an hour or more as her sister and sister\'s -
boyfriend were out-to eat. The situation was not such that
I could readily make any sexual advances... . After her
sister and sister's boyfriend returned I had a very boring
time listening to a conversation in which I took very little
part. Finally, at 12:30 AM, Ellen asked me if I would like
to 'go out for coffee.' I said yes. So I drove her to a
place nearby that she recommended. We spent an hour and a
half there discussing various topics. Then I took her home,
and, on arrival, asked for a goodnight kiss. I got an even
better one than last time. Mouths wide open, tongues
rubbing. *She* started that open-mouth, tongue-rubbing stuff,
not me. ... All this might have lasted, say, 3 minutes.
Then she said, 'I think it's time for you to go home.' So
I did. Though she is very charming and attractive much of
the time, by now I greatly dislike her because of her
egotism and its consequences; for example: she spent some
time bragging about how she was going to become president of
the company and how she was in on company secrets and so
forth... .
"... She says that Wynn \[sic; should be Win\] (the
president of this 2-bit foam-cutting corporation) likes me
and would like to keep me in the company, or at least is
thinking along those lines. She asked me not to tell Wynn
that I had gone out with her; because she said that Wynn had
suggested to her that she should use herself as bait to keep
me around the company; but she had refused. A couple of
hours later when this subject came up again, she said that
Wynn had only made the suggestion in jest. I don't know
just what the truth of the matter is; I wouldn't trust
Ellen for strict accuracy." ¹⁷
In spite of the fact that I wrote in my journal, "by now I
greatly dislike her," I was still infatuated with Ellen.
After our dinner date her behavior toward me became more
inconsistent than it had been before. At times she was warm
and friendly and seemed to invite my overtures; at other
times, for no apparent reason, she would turn so cold that
she seemed to be trying to hurt me. Hence I told myself
repeatedly that I wasn't interested in her any more.
Undoubtedly I would really have lost interest in her if I
hadn't been so sex-starved, or if I had known how to look
elsewhere for a woman. As it was, I remained infatuated.
Without revealing the extent of my feelings toward Ellen or
the fact that she sometimes seemed to be hurting me
intentionally, I discussed with my father and brother her
egotistical and disagreeable concern with power. They agreed
that she did have such a concern, and my brother attributed
it to feelings of inferiority. I answered that I saw no
evidence of such feelings on her part.
On Sunday, August 20, I took Ellen out to the forest
preserves to pick wild apples, from which we were to make
pies. Three days later I wrote:
"It now seems clear that from the very beginning of this
date she was out to humiliate me, or at least to assert a
certain type of superiority over me. This in spite of the
fact that I had made it very clear to her that I was very
sweet on her. I was at pains on this date to be attentive
and agreeable; but she was very cool; not so much so as to
bring out any open disagreement, but just the right amount
to leave me unhappy and wondering." ¹⁸
For example, when we got out of the car at the forest
preserve, instead of walking alongside me, she walked a
couple of feet behind. Two or three times I waited
for her to catch up and tried to walk alongside of her,
but in each case she promptly dropped back again, though
I was walking slowly. ¹⁹ This was particularly
embarrassing to me since there were many people present at
this popular picnic spot. When we headed home with the
apples, she insisted that we should make the pies at my
parents' house, but that I should first take her back to
her apartment so that she could get her car and drive
herself to my parents' house, then drive herself home
afterward.
"She insisted on a peculiar way of using her auto and mine
[actually, my father's\]; this arrangement was such that I
would have no opportunity to ask for a goodnight kiss. At
this point I felt that explicit clarification was called
for, so I asked her if she was intentionally avoiding a
goodnight kiss. After a little hesitation she answered that
she was. I then asked further questions..." ²⁰
When I thus tried to open to the light of day her indirect
and half-covert maneuverings, she became quite tense, and
her voice was at first slightly shaky.
"...and what she told me was essentially this: She had no
sexual interest in me; she said she liked me, but the way
and the context in which she said it indicated that it was
the condescending sort of liking that one might have for a
child or for some other kind of social inferior.
"She claimed she went out with me mainly in order to
satisfy her curiosity about me because she had never met
anyone like me before. She said a kiss 'doesn't mean
anything.' She claimed there was no sex in it when she
kissed me. (This seems a little implausible in the case of
an open-mouth kiss with tongues rubbing... .)
"During the first part of the date she [had been] cool
and a little glum; but...after she had humiliated me she
immediately became quite cheerful and gay for the rest of
the day. ...
"It seemed to me that during the rest of the day she would
occasionally rub in her little triumph by making remarks
that were somewhat cutting but not so much so as to bring
about any open breach of friendlyness [sic]. For example,
I asked her what were some of my unusual characteristics
that made her feel I was 'unlike anyone she had ever met.'
The first one she mentioned was: 'You are so very lacking
in confidence socially.' (True enough, but not nice to say
so, unless after taking special pains to be tactful.)" ²¹
One thing she told me in the course of that conversation
particularly struck me. She talked about some fellow she had
gone out with a great deal when she was in college, saying,
"I treated him rotten, I even stood him up one time, but he
still kept taking me out." What was remarkable was the
*relish* with which she said she had "treated him rotten."
At the time, I was desperately confused about Ellen and her
behavior toward me, but after the dust had settled the
explanation seemed pretty clear. She, to my way of thinking,
was a sexual sadist. Under ordinary circumstances she was a
nice, friendly, considerate person; but when she was feeling
sexy she got her kicks from hurting men. ²² Probably most
men were not seriously hurt by her. After having a couple of
dates with her and learning what she was like, they just
stopped asking her out. But I was especially vulnerable
because of my past history and my inexperience with women.
During the latter part of that last date,
"I took pains to conceal my feelings, and remained
outwardly cheerful and friendly, though half the time I
wanted to cry and the other half the time I wanted to kill
her." ²³
"I loved that damn bitch. She knew I had soft feelings
toward her and she intentionally used these to lead me on
and then she calculatedly humiliated me.
"I was so upset by this that for the next 2 nights I was
unable to sleep more than 4 hours a night, and, what was
worse, I was exhausted by nervous tension. That date was
Sunday. Monday I did nothing about it because I was
exhausted and had had no time to think things over. But
after work I did think things over; I had an overwhelming
need for revenge and I decided to get it by persistently
needling and insulting her at work." ²⁴
I hoped I could bring matters to such a pass that the whole
nasty business would be dragged out in front of the crew,
presumably to Ellen's great embarrassment. ²⁵
"I started Tuesday morning by pasting up some copies of an
insulting poem that I wrote about her." ²⁶
"I don't doubt that I could have made things very
unpleasant for her by such methods - except that my
weak-minded, self-righteous brother took it upon himself to
interfere. Having seen the poem I pasted up, he said he
would fire me...and 'maybe bust your ass, too' if I did
it again." ²⁷
I asked my brother to listen to my side of the story, but he
angrily refused to do so, and let stand his threat to fire
me.
"Of course, that was a direct challenge, so I wasn't
about to back down. This afternoon [August 23, 1978], I
went over to where my brother was working and pasted up a
copy of the poem before his eyes...," ²⁸ whereupon he
fired me, as described earlier. When I went to Ellen's
office to ask her whether the firing was valid, she seemed
dismayed at the situation and was apparently reluctant to
confirm my dismissal. In my journal, naturally, I put a
negative interpretation on this behavior, ²⁹ but in
retrospect I think she was genuinely sorry at what had
happened. Despite her description of herself as
"vindictive" (see p. 283) I don't think she was in
reality a vindictive person under ordinary circumstances. I
think her sadistic streak manifested itself only when she
was feeling sexy; it was for her a source of sexual
gratification and did not imply any tendency to cruelty in a
non-sexual situation.
Since my brother had frustrated my retaliation against
Ellen, I was choking with anger, and, to make matters worse,
my mother and father turned against me too, *without*
listening to my side of the story first. ³⁰
"[T]hat weak fool Dave has made that bitch's triumph
complete: She humiliates me sexually, she gets me fired from
my job, and she causes dissension in my family.
I have shed more tears over that cheap whore than I have
over anything since my teens... .
"What makes this particularly hard is the fact that it
recalls bitter experiences over many years, reaching right
back to my early teens...," ³¹ namely, the rejections I had
experienced and my complete lack of success with women. I
was more choked with frustrated anger than I'd ever been in
my life, so I decided to retaliate against Ellen in the only
way that remained to me - by attacking her physically. To
abbreviate as much as possible the account of a distasteful
episode, on Thursday, August 24, I waited for Ellen in the
parking lot of Foam Cutting Engineers. When she arrived I
confronted her, talked with her briefly, and then left
without laying a finger on her. ³² After that my anger was
burned out, and since then I haven't hated her.
The next day I went out and got a job at Prince Castle (by
that time I'd learned how to lie on application forms), and
the same day I wrote Ellen a long letter of explanation,
which I *did* mail. According to the media, Ellen has said
that she never received "any correspondence" from me. ³³
If she did say that, then she was not telling the truth. A
letter is occasionally lost in the mail, but besides the
first letter I also sent her a second letter (dated
September 2, 1978), and the chance that *both* of these
letters could have been lost in the mail is so slight that
we can be for all practical purposes certain that she
received at least one of them. Both letters are reproduced
in Appendix 9.
Why has Ellen denied receiving my letter? Maybe she doesn't
remember it, or maybe she wants to avoid discussing its
content, which would force her to address the issue of her
behavior toward me.
Probably on August 25, when I wrote it, or conceivably on
the following day, I showed the letter to my parents as a
way of explaining my behavior. They read it and said that
now they understood better; the tension went out of the
atmosphere and we were reconciled. However, my parents did
not apologize for the way they'd reacted earlier. Then I
went to my brother's bedroom (where he spent most of his
time when staying at the house in Lombard ³⁴) and showed
him the letter. He too read it, and while he did not
apologize explicitly at that time, ³⁵ his manner seemed to
indicate that he regretted the way he had reacted; and I was
reconciled with him, too. The *New York Times* stated that
"tensions between the brothers continued]," ³⁶ but this
is false.
In fairness to Ellen Tarmichael I must make it clear that
when the whole affair was finished her attitude was
conciliatory and even kind. As I wrote in my journal:
"Sept. 1. Yesterday...my father brought home from
Foam-Cutting Eng. a present of home-made cookies from
Ellen, for the family. ...I sent Ellen a message through
my father: that the cookies were delicious, that I apologize
for the tone of my letter, and that I no longer have any
hard feelings toward her. Today he said he'd given her the
message. He said she seemed pleased and that she said: 'I
think the problem was that Ted and I speak different
languages.' " ³⁷
Notice that this passage tends to confirm that Ellen did
receive my letter. If she hadn't received it, then, when my
father told her that I apologized for the tone of the
letter, she presumably would have answered that she hadn't
received any letter, and my father would have reported that
fact to me.
Also notice that Ellen failed to face up to the real source
of the problem - that she had a streak of sexual sadism.
\*\*\*\*\*\*
The reader will please review my brother's recent remarks on
the Ellen Tarmichael affair as reported by the *New York
Times* and the *Washington Post* (quoted at the beginning of
this chapter) and compare them with the following passages
that he wrote in 1981, some three-years after the events:
"I was wrong to fire you and threaten you. I did so in
anger because you were behaving badly (which is your own
business) and because you caused severe embarrassment to Dad
and me. ... But I realized soon afterwards that I should
have taken into account how badly you were feeling at the
time." ³⁸
"I think if the manner of your taking revenge against Ellen
had arisen in its own isolation, I probably would have
responded very differently, though it would be impossible
now to know for sure. I hope, at any rate, that I would have
responded differently." ³⁹
There follows a passage in which my brother argues that
during the months preceding the incident in question I had
been treating our parents badly. It is a passage that I am
unable to understand, since it seems to me that during that
period my relations with our parents were better than at any
other time since I was eleven or twelve years old.
My brother's letter continues:
"When you brought trouble into the workplace (as I
conceived it) I guess I just lost my head and my discretion
completely. ... ⁴⁰ I say again that I was wrong to do what
I did, although I suppose I have learned (for whatever good
it will do me) how thoroughly I can be undone by my bad
temper. ... ⁴⁰ From my point of view, all of this is in
the past, though of course I acknowledge the major injury
was yours not mine." ⁴¹
These passages show that, while my conduct in the Tarmichael
affair was not exactly noble and generous, my brother did
realize that there were two sides to the story and that my
behavior was at any rate understandable (whict does not
imply that it was blameless). Yet, if the *New York Times*
and the *Washington Post* have reported his remarks
accurately, he gave them a one-sided version of the affair
that made it appear that there was no mitigation for my
behavior.
This provides further evidence that my brother's motive for
talking to the media about me was not what he claimed, to
"humanize" me and decrease my risk of suffering the death
penalty. If that had been his motive he would have taken a
softer approach, comparable to that of his 1981 letters,
which recognized that there were two sides to the story.
Instead, he took a hard line and portrayed me in a way that
was certainly not calculated to win the sympathy of a judge
or a jury.
\*\*\*\*\*\*
I want to reiterate that I believe Ms. Tarmichael to be
under normal circumstances a very decent and kindly person.
Sexual peculiarities are of course commonplace and when she
gave expression to hers in regard to me I'm sure that she
had no idea of how badly she was hurting me - since she
knew nothing about my past history.
I've included this chapter only to put before the public
the truth about a matter that has been badly misrepresented
in the media. I ask journalists to refrain from harassing
Ms. Tarmichael with questions about this affair. It's
doubtful that they will honor this request, but if they
don't it will be further evidence of the irresponsibility
of the majority of media people.
## NOTES TO CHAPTER X
1. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, July 17, 1978, pp.
1-3.
2. Same, July 17, 1978, pp. 2-5.
3. Same, August 26, 1978, p. 43.
4. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 24, columns 2, 3.
5. (Hb) *Washington Post*, June 16, 1996, p. A21.
6. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, August 23, 1978, pp.
33, 34.
7. My brother fired me on Wednesday, August 23 ((Ba)
Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, August 23, 1978, pp. 32, 33).
As I remember it, I was hired by Prince Castle on Friday,
August 25, and began work there on Monday, August 28.
Whether or not my memory is accurate on this point, it is
certain that I had begun work at Prince Castle by Thursday,
August 31, since on September 1 I wrote in my journal,
"Yesterday I felt extremely bad again. But when I got home
from work in the evening... ." (Ba) Journals of TJK,
Series VI #4, September 1, 1978, p. 5.
8. (Cb) FL Supplementary Item #11, letter from me to Ellen
Tarmichael, August 25, 1978.
9. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, July 17, 1978, p. 1.
10. Same, July 17, 1978, pp. 1, 2.
11. Same, July 17, 1978, p. 3.
12. Same, July 17, 1978, pp. 3-5.
13. Same, July 17, 1978, pp. 5-10. This journal entry was
written on the day after the events it describes, since we
find on p. 3: "I figured I would just...drop in on her
unannounced on Sunday (yesterday) afternoon."
14. (Ad) Autobiog of TJK 1988, p. 16: "[A]t the age of
36 I found an intelligent and attractive 30-year old woman
(call her Miss T.)... . I'd heard vague rumors to the
effect that there was something funny about her, but beggars
can't be choosers, so I took my chances... ."
15. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, July 29,
1978, p. 10.
16. Same, August 23, 1978, p. 30. I recorded this remark of
Ellen's almost four weeks after the dinner date, and I did
not state in my journal that the remark was made on that
date, but I remember it as having been made at that time. In
any case, it matters little whether Ellen made the remark
then or at some other time.
In the early months of 1979 I wrote:
"In 1978 I knew a woman named Ellen Tarmichael. Once she
told me that if anyone ever played a dirty trick on her she
would get revenge no matter what; she would do anything, no
matter how underhanded, etc., etc. She sounded so
unscrupulous that I started to feel a little uneasy with
her. Later that same day, she started giving me a spiel
about how she felt everyone had a duty to help society and
all that kind of stuff. I asked her how she would square
this with the vengeful attitudes she had been expressing
earlier. She said, 'Well, those ideas of revenge are only
things that I fantasize. I have never actually done anything
like that.' " (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 102, 103.
17. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, July 29,
1978, pp. 10-15.
18. Same, August 23, 1978, p. 21.
19. (Ad) Autobiog of TJK 1988, p. 17 "[S]he refused to
walk alongside me and insisted on walking a couple of feet
behind."
20. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, August 23,
1978, pp. 21,22.
21. Same, August 23, 1978, pp. 22-25.
22. (Ad) Autobiog of TJK 1988, p. 17: "From my own
experience with her, from what I'd heard about her, and
from things that she said, I concluded that she was probably
a sadist who got a sexual kick out of humiliating men."
23. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, August 23,
1978, p. 24.
24. Same, August 23, 1978, pp. 25-27.
25. (Cb) FL Supplementary Item #11, letter from me to Ellen
Tarmichael, August 25, 1978, p. 6.
26. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, August 23, 1978, p.
27, and August 26, 1978, p. 44.
The media have stated that at work I made "loud, crude
remarks" about Ellen. ((Ja) *Mad Genius*, p. 53; (Jb)
*Unabomber*, pp. 97, 98.) This is false. Apart from
the limericks there was some hostile eye contact between us,
and at one point I pinched her behind, but I made no
offensive remarks to her or about her. I might have done so
later if my brother had not interfered by firing me, but I
did not in fact do so. If I *had* made offensive remarks they
would not have been loud. Everyone who knows me at all well
knows that that just isn't my way. See (Ba) Journals of
TJK, Series VI #2, August 23, 1978, pp. 26-32, where are
described the interactions between Ellen and me from the
time I pasted up the limericks to the time when my brother
fired me.
27. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, August 23,
1978, p. 32.
28. Same, August 23, 1978, pp. 32, 33.
29. Same, August 23, 1978, pp. 33-35.
30. (Ca) FL #458, letter from me to my mother, July 5,
1991, p. 2: "[You'll remember what happened when Ellen
Tarmichael...intentionally and cruelly hurt and
humiliated me, and I retaliated by trying to embarrass her.
*Refusing to listen to my side of the story*, Dave (as well
as you and Dad) jumped down on me and treated me as if I
were some kind of a monster."
31. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #2, August 23,
1978, pp. 35, 36.
32. Same, August 23, 1978, p. 40, and August 26,
1978, pp. 40-43.
33. (Ja) *Mad Genius*, p. 53.
34. If I wanted to be nasty, I could say that he "shut
himself up in his room for days at a time." He certainly
spent at least as much time in his room as I did in mine.
35. (Ca) FL #458, letter from me to my mother, July 5,
1991, p. 2: "[E]ven after I had fully explained to you
what had happened, not one of you three apologized to me or
said a single word in sympathy for my pain. To do Dave
justice,...*a couple of years later* he did apologize... ."
36. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 24, column 3.
37. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series VI #4, September 1, 1978,
pp. 5, 6.
38. (Ca) FL #245, letter from David Kaczynski to me, late
summer or fall of 1981, pp. 2, 3.
39. (Ca) FL #247, letter from David Kaczynski to me, late
summer or fall of 1981, p. 1.
40. The three dots are in the original.
41. (Ca) FL #247, letter from David Kaczynski to me, late
summer or fall of 1981, p. 3.

BIN
ch14.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

1096
ch14.md Normal file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

BIN
ch15.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

1209
ch15.md Normal file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

BIN
ch2re.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

658
ch2re.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,658 @@
# CHAPTER II
My mother, my brother, and the media have portrayed me as
socially isolated to an abnormal degree from earliest
childhood. For example, shortly after my arrest, *Time*
reported: "Investigators were told that in childhood Ted
seemed to avoid human contact." ¹
According to Investigator #1's interview with my mother,
"As he grew older (age 2-4) Wanda spent a great deal of
time attempting to get Ted to play with other kids, mostly
without success. Friends and relatives always told her Ted
was too clingy, so she attempted to encourage his
interaction with other children. She would invite children
from the neighborhood over to play, only to have Ted leave
the group and go to his room to play alone. She said he
always managed to have one friend at a time, but would
rebuff the attempts of friendship from all other children.
Wanda also took Ted to a play school for children for an
hour or so each week so that he could play with other kids.
Ted didn't mind going, but would play alongside the other
children instead of with them. Ted would get angry if
another child tried to join or interfered with what he was
doing. Ted went to preschool and kindergarten, and seemed to
enjoy it. The teachers did not complain about his behavior,
but did mention Ted always wanted to work on projects alone,
and did not interact with other children." ²
The *Washington Post* told a similar tale on the basis of an
interview with my mother. ³
Here again the documentary evidence shows that my mother is
lying. I will not try the reader's patience by addressing
all of her false statements, but will stick to the essential
point, that my interaction with other children was normal
until, at about the age of 11, I began to have serious
social problems for reasons that will be made clear later.
According to the pediatricians who examined me:
"April 4, 1945... Plays well with other children. ..."
"May 18, 1950... Healthy boy. Well adjusted. ..."
"May 8, 1951... Plays well with children in school and
neighborhood. Very happy." ⁴
The doctors could have obtained this information about my
social adjustment only from my mother. It was always she,
and not my father, who took me to my examinations at the
University of Chicago clinics.
Thus, statements of my mother's that were recorded during
my childhood clearly contradict her recent statements
concerning my early social development. If she wasn't lying
then, she is lying now. Either way, the record shows her to
be a liar.
What then is the truth concerning my social adjustment in
early childhood? My mother's reports to doctors carry
little weight because, as we will show later, she often did
lie in order to present a favorable picture of me to persons
outside the immediate family. But since the Baby Book was
private there is no particular reason to doubt the
statements she made there that show that I was not socially
withdrawn.
It's true that at one point in the Baby Book my mother
indicated I was somewhat shy, ⁵ as noted in Chapter I, and
I myself have a vague memory of being a little shy up to the
age of five or so. Furthermore, I wrote in my 1959
autobiography:
"As far as I can remember, I have always been socially
reserved, and used to be rather unpleasantly conscious of
the fact. For example, I remember that when I was very
little, 3 or 4 years old, I was very concerned over the fact
that when my mother bought me an ice cream cone, I was
always afraid to take it directly from the lady's hand; my
mother had to take it from her and give it to me. Eventually
I overcame this. ...
"I learned to whistle and to swim later than most of my
companions,\[text unknown\] did learn to skate. And it
often bothered me that I was less socially active than the
rest of the boys, which I think was partly due to shyness
and partly due to a certain lack of interest in some of
their activities. I've always kept to myself a lot." ⁶
The second paragraph of this passage evidently applies not
to my earliest years but to a much later period when I did
indeed have social problems. As a result of these problems I
began to take a perverse pride in being unsocial, and this
is probably what led me to imply (as I did in the first
paragraph above) that I was "socially reserved" even in my
earliest years.
But even if that first paragraph is taken at face value,
there is plenty of evidence to show that my social
interaction with other children was easily within the normal
range until my real problems began in early adolescence. As
we saw in Chapter I, my mother indicated in the Baby Book
that at the age of one year I was consistently friendly to
other children:
"*Is he usually shy or friendly with strange women*? either
*men*? either *children*? friendly... ." ⁵
From age one to three I developed a close friendship with
Adam Ks., a boy about eight months older than I was. The
attachment left a long-lasting impression on both of us. He
was the son of the couple who occupied the first floor of
the house of which my parents and I had the second story;
when we moved to another house I was separated from him. ⁷
In the new house we again occupied the second story, and
with the little girl downstairs, Barbara P., I formed
another strong attachment, ⁸ though it was not as strong
as my attachment to Adam. During this same period (age 3 to
4) I had at least one other frequent playmate, whose name,
if I remember correctly, was Jackie. ⁹
Shortly before my fifth birthday we moved to a house on
Carpenter Street (the first house that my parents owned),
¹⁰ and from that time until I entered Harvard I always had
several friends. My friends on Carpenter Street included
Johnny Kr., Bobby Th., Freddie Do., Jimmy Bu., Larry La.,
and Mary Kay Fy. ¹¹ As long as we lived on Carpenter
Street, I attended Sherman School, a unit of the Chicago
public-school system. All of my friends on Carpenter Street
either attended the Catholic school or were a year older
than I was, so that they were in a different grade.
Consequently my school friends were not the same as those
with whom I played near home. My school friends included
Frank Ho., Terry La C., Rosario (an Italian kid whose last
name I do not remember) and Peter Ma. ¹²
I not only had friends but, on a few occasions, exercised
leadership. For example, I once came up with the idea of
putting on a "carnival," as we called it. I persuaded
Johnny Kr. and Bobby Th. to help me arrange games and simple
entertainments, and after advertising the event by word of
mouth for several days we made up tickets by hand, sold them
to neighborhood kids, and made a modest profit. ¹³
Thus there is no truth in my mother's portrayal of me as
abnormally solitary from early childhood. There was no need
for her to "invite children from the neighborhood over to
play," ¹⁴ nor did she ever do so during these years as
far as I can remember.
The first indication of any significant social difficulties
on my part came when I was perhaps eight or nine years old,
¹⁵ and it very likely resulted from the fact that our
family was different from its neighbors. My father worked
with his hands all his life; my mother, apart from teaching
high school English for two years during her fifties, never
did anything more demanding than lower-level secretarial
work; and our family always lived among working-class and
lower-middle class people. Yet my parents always regarded
themselves as a cut above their neighbors. They had
intellectual pretensions, and though their own intellectual
attainments were extremely modest, to say the least, they -
especially my mother - looked down on their neighbors as
"ignorant." (But they were usually careful not to reveal
their snobbish attitudes outside the family.) ¹⁶
Our block of Carpenter Street was part of a working-class
neighborhood that was just one step above the slums. As my
playmates grew older, some of them began engaging in behavior
that approached or crossed the line dividing acceptable
childhood mischief from delinquency. ¹⁷ For example, two of
them got into trouble for trying to set fire to someone's
garage. ¹⁵ I had been trained to a much more exacting
standard of behavior and wouldn't participate in the other
kids' mischief. ¹⁸ Once, for instance, I was with a bunch
of neighborhood kids who waited in ambush for an old
rag-picker, pelted him with garbage when he came past, and
then ran away. I stood back in the rear and refused to
participate, and immediately afterward I went home and told
my mother what had happened, because I was shocked at such
disrespect being shown to an adult - even if he was only a
rag-picker. ¹⁹
So it may be that the reason why I ceased to be fully
accepted by my Carpenter-Street playmates at around the age
of eight or nine was that they saw me as too much of a
"good boy." In any case they did seem to lose interest in
my companionship - I was no longer one of the bunch. ²⁰ I
continued to get along well with the kids in school. ²¹
Unlike the kids on my block they showed no tendency to
serious mischief, either because they were better-behaved
kids or because the supervised environment of school left
few opportunities for misbehavior.
My parents noticed the fact that I was becoming isolated
from my Carpenter-Street friends, and they repeatedly
expressed to me their concern that there might be something
wrong with me because I was not social enough. ¹⁵ To me it
was acutely humiliating to be pushed out to the fringe by
these kids with whom I had formerly associated on an equal
basis, and I was too ashamed to tell my parents what was
really happening, or even to admit it to myself until many
years later. My mother invented an explanation for my
isolation that was consistent with her intellectual
pretensions: I wasn't playing with the other kids because I
was so much smarter than they were that they bored me. This
was absurd. I was bored with the other kids when (as often
happened) they moped around aimlessly rather than pursuing
some activity, but there can be no doubt that I wanted to
continue playing with them and was deeply hurt by the fact
that I was no longer fully accepted. Yet, because my
mother's explanation soothed my vanity, I half-believed it
myself. In a very brief (one and a quarter-page)
autobiographical sketch that I wrote at the age of fifteen,
I said:
"Beginning in the second or third grade I began to become
somewhat unsocial, keeping to myself and seeking the
companionship of my comrades less often. This was probably
due, in part, to the level of education and culture in my
old neighborhood, where no one was interested in science,
art, or books." ²²
Actually, I wasn't so terribly interested in science, art,
or books myself. The autobiographical sketch was part of an
application for admission to Harvard and therefore was
written under the close supervision of my mother. Rereading
it now I feel almost certain that the first paragraph of it
was actually composed by her. That paragraph is written in a
kind of language that I rarely use now and that I can hardly
imagine myself having used at the age of fifteen; but it's
just the sort of thing that my mother would write. ²³
I'm quite sure that my partial isolation from the
Carpenter-Street kids did not begin before I was eight, at
the earliest, and that I had no serious problems with the
kids in school at the time. Yet the sketch refers to "the
second or third grade," which would make me seven or eight
years old. Possibly my mother's hand is seen here too.
Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, I think my parents had
an inkling of the fact that the bad behavior of the other
kids had something to do with my isolation. Not long after
my tenth birthday we moved to Evergreen Park, a suburb of
Chicago, and my mother told me many years later that she and
my father had decided to move mainly so that I "would have
some decent kids to play with." Though my mother is hardly
a reliable source of information, her statement is probably
true in part; yet it's likely that there were also other
reasons for the move. Not far from where we lived, a case
of "block-busting" ²⁴ gave rise to some very serious
race-riots that were essentially territorial conflicts
between the black and the white working class. All white
householders in the area were put under pressure to place in
their windows a small sign saying, "This property is not
for sale," which was intended as a show of white solidarity
against black "intrusion." My parents had very liberal
attitudes about race and felt that it was against their
principles to put up such a sign. But they received a
threat, and, fearing that I might be attacked on my way to
school, they gave in and placed the sign. ²⁵ This was
extremely upsetting to them and it must have contributed to
their decision to move out to the suburbs.
\* \* \* \* \*
Meanwhile, when I was a bit less than seven-and-a-half years
old, I had acquired a baby brother. My brother David for
many years has argued that I unconsciously hate him because
the attention that my parents devoted to him on his arrival
made me feel deprived of their affection. ²⁶
The *New York Times* quoted my aunt Josephine Manney, née
Kaczynski, as follows:
" 'Before David was born, Teddy was different,' the aunt
said. 'When they'd visit he'd snuggle up to me. Then, when
David was born, something must have happened. He changed
immediately. Maybe we paid too much attention to the new
baby.' " ²⁷
Little did my aunt Josephine know the *real* reason why I
stopped snuggling up to her! I'll explain in a moment. But
first let me make it clear that I'd never heard anything of
this sort from Josephine before I read the *New York Times*
article, and it's evident that my brother never heard it
either, since, in our discussions of his theory about my
reaction to his birth, he never mentioned any such statement
on the part of our aunt; nor did he ever cite any other
rational evidence in support of his theory. The theory,
apparently, grew entirely out of his own imagination.
As to the real reason why I stopped snuggling up to my aunt:
Josephine was a good-looking woman; though she was over
forty at the time of my brother's birth, she'd kept herself
in shape and was still attractive. I don't know whether it
was normal or precocious, but by the age of about seven I
already had a fairly strong interest in the female body. ²⁸
Not long after my brother's birth, my family and I visited
the apartment where Josephine lived with her mother (my
paternal grandmother). My aunt and I were sitting on a
couch, and, attracted by her breasts, I slid over against
her, put my arm over her shoulder, and said, "Let's play
girlfriend." Josephine laughed and put her arm around me,
and I had the decided satisfaction of feeling her breast
against my body. My aunt just thought it was cute, but my
mother was sharp enough to see what was really going on.
After a short interval she said, "I think I'll go to the
store and get some ice cream" (or maybe it was candy or
something else), and she invited me to come with her. I
declined, but she insisted that I should come. As soon as
she got me out of the house she gave me a tongue-lashing and
a lecture on appropriate behavior with ladies. It will not
surprise the reader that, from then on, I kept my distance
from Josephine.
To return to my brother's theory that I resented his
arrival in the family: He first indicated his suspicion that
I unconsciously hated him in a letter to me written some
time during the summer of 1982. That letter has not been
preserved, but there is a reference to it in a letter that I
sent to my brother in 1986. I wrote: "I recall that a few
years ago you said you had feared that I had (as you put it)
a hatred for you so great that even I was unable to
acknowledge it." ²⁹
In a letter that he wrote to me in 1986, my brother
expounded his theory as follows:
"You should have hated me, in that as a new baby in the
family, the new locus of affection, I should have awakened
your fears of abandonment. \[My brother is referring here
to the alleged "fear of abandonment" that I was supposed
to have as a result of "that hospital experience."\] The
parents tell me that just the opposite was true, that you
were extremely affectionate toward me and that you didn't
show any jealousy whatsoever. I have thought of a way to fit
this in, by recourse to the Freudian theory of 'Denial.'
When you saw the murdered babies in the Nazi camp, it might
have awakened your horror as a secret wish fulfillment in
respect to me. \[My brother is referring here to a dream
that I once had about him, concerning which I will have more
to say shortly.\] When you vowed to protect me at the
expense of your own life, perhaps the one you vowed to
protect me from was *yourself*, I have no idea how much or
little truth there may be in this interpretation." ³⁰
The disclaimer in the last sentence is perhaps disingenuous,
as my brother has clung to the theory persistently over the
years. According to the *New York Times*, "David said his
mother told him that she gradually encouraged Ted to hold
him and that 'from that time forward, he showed a great
deal of gentleness toward me.' " ³¹ The implication,
that I had resented him at first, is contradicted by my
brother's own statement, quoted above, that "\[t\]he
parents tell me that... you were extremely affectionate
toward me and that you didn't show any jealousy
whatsoever." It is also contradicted by a statement of my
mother's: "Ted seemed to easily accept having a brother in
the house, and liked to hold David when he was a baby." ²
As I remember it, prior to my brother's birth my parents
told me repeatedly that the new baby, when it came, would
require a great deal of care and attention, and that I must
not feel that my parents loved me any less because they were
devoting so much time to the baby. When David was born I
wondered why my parents had put so much emphasis on this
point, because I by no means felt left out or deprived of
attention. As I wrote in my 1979 autobiography:
"My brother David was born when I was 7½. I considered this
a pleasant event. I was interested in the baby and enjoyed
being allowed to hold it. ...
"One reads much about 'sibling rivalry' - the older child
supposedly resents the new baby because he feels it has
robbed him of his parents' affection. I do not recall ever
having had any such feeling about my baby brother. ... I
think my parents were aware of the problem of 'sibling
rivalry' and made a conscious effort to avoid this problem
when the new baby came ." ³²
In those years my parents and I got all our medical care at
the University of Chicago teaching hospitals, which were
among the finest in America, and the doctors no doubt had
talked to my parents about the way to handle my relationship
with my new brother.
Why then does my brother think that I have an intense,
unconscious hatred for him? People often attribute their own
motives and impulses (including unconscious ones) to other
people. Further on in this book we will show that my brother
has a hatred for me that he has not acknowledged - probably
not even to himself. At the same time he has a strong
affection for me, and it appears that he has never faced up
to the profound conflict between his love and his hatred. My
brother habitually retreats from conflicts rather than
struggling with them.
My feelings toward my brother in his infancy are well
illustrated by a dream that I described to him in a letter
that I sent him during the summer of 1982. After making some
highly critical comments about his character, I wrote:
"I am going to open to you the window to my soul as I would
not open it to anyone else, by telling you two dreams that
I've had about you. The first dream is simple. It is one I
had more than thirty years ago, when I was maybe 7 or 8
years old and you were still a baby in your crib. Some time
before, I had seen pictures of starving children in Europe
taken shortly after world war II - they were emaciated, with
arms like sticks, ribs protruding, and guts hanging out.
Well, I dreamed that there was a war in America and I saw
you as one of these children, emaciated and starving. It
affected me strongly and when I woke up I made up my mind
that if there was ever a war in America I would do
everything I possibly could to protect you. This illustrates
the semi-maternal tenderness that I've often felt for you."
³³
In reply to the foregoing letter my brother wrote to me
expressing his gratitude for the affection I had expressed,
and for the fact that I "cared for \[him\] more than anyone
else ever had." He then added the remark mentioned
earlier - that until then he had feared that I had a
hatred for him so great that I could not acknowledge it. ³⁴
I referred to this letter of my brother's in a note that I
wrote him in September, 1982:
"I received your last letter and note that it shows your
usual generosity of character. Instead of being sore over
the negative parts of my attitude toward you, you were
favorably impressed by the positive parts." ³⁵
My brother does have a good deal of generosity in his
character, but I now think that the nature of his reaction
to my letter was less a result of generosity than of his
tendency to retreat from conflict.
\* \* \* \* \*
Not long after my brother's birth my mother's personality
began to change. The cause may have been post-partum
depression, a hormonal imbalance brought about by her
pregnancy, or something else, but, whatever the reason, she
began to grow increasingly irritable. ³⁶ The symptoms were
relatively mild at first, but they worsened over the next
several years so that, by the time I reached my teens, she
was having frequent outbursts of rage that express
themselves as unrestrained verbal aggression, sometimes
accompanied by minor physical aggression ³⁷ (though never
enough of the latter to do any physical harm).
The change in my mother's personality affected my father
and brought about a gradual deterioration of the family
atmosphere. I described this in a 1986 letter to my brother:
"You don't realize that the atmosphere in our home was
quite different during the first few years of my life than
it was later. You know how it was during my teens - people
always squabbling, mother crabby and irritable, Dad morosely
passive. Too much ice cream, candy, and treats, parents fat
and self-indulgent. A generally *low-morale* atmosphere. But
it was very different up to the time when I was, say, 8 or 9
years old. Until then, the home atmosphere was cheerful,
there was hardly any quarrelling, and there was a generally
*high-morale* atmosphere. Ice cream and candy were
relatively infrequent treats and were consumed in moderation
... . Our parents were more alive and energetic. When
punishment was necessary it was given with little or no
anger and was used as a more-or-less rational means of
training; whereas during my teens, when I was punished it
was commonly an expression of anger or irritation on the
part of our parents. Consequently this punishment was
*humiliating*. The more-or-less rational punishment of the
early years was not humiliating." ³⁸
## NOTES TO CHAPTER II
1. (Hg) *Time*, April 22, 1996, p. 46.
2. (Ka) Interview of Wanda by Investigator #1, p. 2.
3. (Hb) *Washington Post*, June 16, 1996.
4. (Ea) Med Records of TJK, U. Chi.; April 4, 1945, p. 26;
May 18, 1950, p. 51; May 8, 1951, p. 51.
5. (Bc) Baby Book, p. 122.
6. (Ab) Autobiog of TJK 1959, p. 2.
7. (Bc) Baby Book, pp. 113, 115; (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979,
pp. 1, 2. In (Qb) Written Investigator Report #68, Adam Ks.
himself confirms the strength of this friendship. However,
much of the information he gives is incorrect.
8. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 3.
9. Jackie was the four-year-old boy referred to on p. 1
of (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979.
10. (Ab) Autobiog of TJK 1959, p. 2; (Ac) Autobiog of TJK
1979, p. 5; (Ga) Deed #1.
11. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 5, 6, 10, 11, mentions
all these friends by name.
12. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 6-8 describes my
relations with Frank Ho., Terry La C., and Rosario. My
friendship with Peter Ma. is not documented.
13. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 10, 11.
14. (Ka) Interview of Wanda by Investigator #1, p. 2.
15. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 12.
16. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 17, 24, 79; (Na) FBI 302
number 2, p. 6.
17. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 12, 194.
18. (Ab) Autobiog of TJK 1959, p. 3; (Ac) Autobiog of TJK
1979, pp. 12-14, 16, 17, 194; (Ca) FL#458, letter from me
to my mother, July 5, 1991, pp. 9, 10.
19. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 194; (Ca) FL#458, letter
from me to my mother, July 5, 1991, pp. 9, 10.
"Rag-pickers" were very poor people who made their living,
such as it was, by picking through trash to find anything
that could be sold as scrap.
20. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 12; (Ca) FL#458, letter
from me to my mother, July 5, 1991, p. 9.
21. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 12; (Ca) FL#458, letter
from me to my mother, July 5, 1991, p. 10.
22. (Aa) Autobiog of TJK 1958. When, in (Ab) Autobiog of TJK
1959, p. 2, I wrote, "I was less socially active than the
rest of the boys,... partly due to shyness and partly
due to a certain lack of interest in their activities," I
probably was still under the influence of my mother's
theory that I was bored with other kids because I was
smarter.
23. The first paragraph of this document ((Aa) Autobiog of
TJK 1958) reads:
"My first vague memories are of a golden age of blessed
irresponsibility. But the grass is always greener on the
other side of the fence, and I suppose at that time I looked
forward to the unbounded joys of growing up."
24. "Block-busting" was a practice whereby unscrupulous
realtors would contrive to sell to black people a house on a
white-occupied block near black territory. White
householders on the block, fearing that they would be left
isolated in the midst of a black neighborhood, sold off
their property as quickly as possible. Thus the realtors
were able to buy houses from whites at reduced prices and
sell them again to black families at inflated prices.
25. This account of the placement of the sign is based in
part on what I myself observed at the time, but also in part
on what my mother told me many years later. Given my
mother's unreliability, it cannot be assumed that the
account is strictly accurate.
26. (Ha) *NY Times Nat*., May 26, 1996, p. 22, column 3;
(Ca) FL #330, letter from David Kaczynski to me, March or
April, 1986, p. 14; (Ca) FL#331, letter from me to David
Kaczynski, April 16, 1986, pp. 3, 4.
27. (Ha) *NY Times Nat*., May 26, 1996, p. 22, column 3. The
*Times* quoted only an "aunt" who preferred to remain
anonymous, but the aunt in question is obviously Josephine.
I have just four living aunts: Sylvia, Madeline (aunts by
marriage), Freda, and Josephine. Sylvia married my uncle
Benny when I was in my teens, and I'd never met her before
that time; I was never chummy enough with Madeline to
"snuggle up" to her; and Freda informed me in (Cb) FL
Supplementary item #6, letter from Freda Tuominen to me,
July 20, 1996, that she was not the unnamed aunt quoted by
the *Times* (which I already knew from the content of the
quotations). So that leaves Josephine.
28. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 11, 20.
29. (Ca) FL #331, letter from me to David Kaczynski, April
16, 1986, p. 4.
30. (Ca) FL #330, letter from David Kaczynski to the author,
March or April, 1986, p. 14.
31. (Ha) *NY Times Nat.*, May 26, 1996, p. 22, column 3. In
this same column we find:
"David said his parents told him about how his father,
grandmother and Teddy had gone to the hospital after his
birth. ... 'So my father and grandmother left Ted in the
lobby and went up to visit me,' he said, 'When they all
went down to the lobby... he was sitting there alone in
tears and very deeply upset.'" I don't remember any such
incident, and I doubt that it happened. My brother is very
prone to get his facts garbled.
32. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 17,18.
33. (Ca) FL #266, letter from me to David Kaczynski, Summer,
1982, pp. 5, 6. I described the dream in nearly identical
terms in (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, pp. 17, 18, and added
that "I felt a sense of pity and love toward my
brother... ."
Characteristically, my brother got the dream garbled in
the 1986 letter of his that we quoted a few pages back:
"When you saw the murdered babies in the Nazi camp... When
you vowed to protect me at the expense of your own
life... ." (See Note 30 above.) Compare this with the
correct account of the dream. Later we will see other
instances in which my brother has gotten his facts garbled.
34. This letter has not been preserved, and I am
relying here on memory and on the 1986 letter in which I
mentioned the remark about "great hatred." See Note 29
above.
35. (Ca) FL #271, letter from me to David Kaczynski,
September, 1982, p. 2.
36. (Ca) FL #458, letter from me to my mother, July 5, 1991,
p. 9. (Ca) FL #423, letter from me to my mother, January 15,
1991, pp. 4, 5: "I always felt you were a good mother to me
during my early years. It was when I was around 8 years old
that your behavior and the family atmosphere began to
deteriorate, and it was during my teens that I was subjected
to constant, cutting insults such as imputations of
immaturity or mental illness." My Xerox copy of the copy of
this letter that I mailed to my mother is illegible in
places. Therefore, for one line of the foregoing quotation I
had to refer to p. 2 of the copy of this letter that I kept
in my cabin.
37. Example of minor physical aggression is given in (Ac)
Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 47 (throwing saucepan).
38. (Ca) FL #339, letter from me to David Kaczynski, May,
1986, pp. 3, 4. A similar account is given in (Ac) Autobiog
of TJK 1979, pp. 38, 39. For confirmation see (Ca) FL#458,
letter from me to my mother, July 5, 1991, p. 9. (Ab)
Autobiog of TJK 1959, p. 5, has: "My relationship with my
parents used to be generally affectionate, but the last few
years it has deteriorated considerably... ."

BIN
f.pdf Normal file

Binary file not shown.

BIN
f2.pdf Normal file

Binary file not shown.

BIN
int.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

1059
int.md Normal file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

BIN
nti.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

471
nti.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,471 @@
## NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
1. (Hp) Daily Oklahoman, June 12, 1995.
2. Envelope X; see the three sheets marked with a green
letter A at the top.
3. I am considering here only (Qb) Written Investigator
Reports. I am leaving out of consideration (Kb) Lincoln
Interviews, of which I have made very little use in this
book, and which I have not taken the trouble to tabulate;
except to the extent that some of the Lincoln interviews
also occur among the Written Investigator Reports.
I am considering here only the Written Investigator
Reports that I have received as of March 6, 1998. If I
receive more such reports later, I will not bother to
change the tabulation.
4. To experimental psychologists, "long-term" memory
means any memory spanning more than thirty seconds. But here
I use the expression "long-term" to indicate memories of
events that have occurred years or decades in the past.
I have often been surprised to find that other people
have failed to remember things that I remember quite
clearly. Here is an example:
When I took German R at Harvard I sat next to a student
named Kostinski. We had similar last names and we were the
two best students in the class; he was best and I was
second-best. Nine or ten years later when I was at Berkeley,
in a building that contained the offices of some of the math
department's junior faculty and graduate students, I
encountered Kostinski, who was pacing back and forth
absorbed in thought. I accosted him, saying, "Weren't you
in German R at Harvard?" He looked at me blankly. "German
R...?" To prod his memory I mentioned the instructor's
name. "Miss Dreimanis." Kostinski broke into a broad smile
and exclaimed, "Oh! Were you in that class?" I chatted
with him for a few minutes, and he told me that he was a
graduate student in the math department and was working on
his doctoral dissertation. "I thought you were pre-med," I
said. He answered, "I was, but I switched to math." Thus I
correctly recalled Kostinski's name, his face, and the
career he'd planned at the time I knew him, while he did
not remember me at all, nor did he remember the designation
of Miss Dreimanis's course (German R).
I am relying on memory for this thirty-year-old
anecdote, but any reader who is sufficiently interested can
check it out. It shouldn't be very difficult to determine
whether the Berkeley math department in 1967, 1968, or 1969
had a graduate student named Kostinski who had taken German
R at Harvard in the fall of 1958 and got an A in it.
5. Investigators #2 and #6 told me this at least three
times during 1996 and early 1997. In the fall of 1997 I
asked for confirmation and received it orally (Qa). Oral
Report From Investigator #2, November 10, 1997 reads: "My
long-term memory is unusually accurate - confirmed by
\[Investigator #2\] and \[his/her\] investigators who
asked Investigator #2 for written confirmation and he/she
gave me the following:
"Ted appears to have a good long term memory. Many
people who have been interviewed have concurred with Ted's
recollection of certain events. For example, Ted recalled
that in college he had a classmate X\_\_\_\_Y\_\_\_\_, who
rocked back and forth and Prof. Y\_\_\_\_ confirmed this
account. \[Actually I remembered only the first name of this
classmate; I'm not sure I ever knew his last name.\] Ted
has been able to recall names of teachers and people he knew
from over thirty years ago as well as addresses, dates of
birth and literature from childhood. \[I don't know what
dates of birth or literature Investigator #2 is referring
to.\] He has also recalled floor plans of residences and
accurate maps of campuses that he hasn't been at in over
thirty years \['accurate maps of campuses' should be
deleted\]." (Qc) Written Reports by Investigator #2, p.2.
I pointed out to Investigator #2 that "Ted appears to
have a good long term memory" was a considerably weaker
statement than the ones he/she had earlier given me orally.
Investigator #2 agreed, said that the earlier, stronger
statements were correct, and changed his/her written report
to read: "Ted has a remarkably good long term memory. ..."
(Qc) Written Reports by Investigator #2, p.2.
6. (Ca) FL#423, letter from me to my mother, January 15,
1991, pp. 6,7: "What I especially hope you haven't thrown
out is some old letters of mine. ... I'm interested in
the accuracy of long-term memory. ... So I'd appreciate
it if you could send me either the letters, or photocopies
of them... . If it is not convenient for you to crawl up in
the attic to rummage around for the letters, then of course
you need not do so." (Ca) FL#424, letter from my mother to
me, late January, 1991: "I'm too short and stiff to be able
to climb safely into the attic... . *However*, I did find
a box full of letters from you in your foot locker. ...
I'll send you the box full... ."
My mother did send me these letters, which comprised
almost all of the letters from me that she'd saved from
about 1968 through the 1980's, but I never even got around
to glancing at them before my arrest. Later, when I was in
jail, I was given copies of these letters as well as the
older letters (1957-1968) that had been stored in the attic,
and other letters written by or to members of my family.
It is because the past is important to me that I have been
interested in the accuracy of long-term memory.
7. (Fc) School Records of TJK, Harvard, p.81.
8. Same, pp. 37, 38.
9. "Ren" is meant as an abbreviation for "Renaissance
thought and literature."
10. "hum gen" is an abbreviation for "human genetics."
11. "Eng intel hist" is an abbreviation for "English
intellectual history."
12. I can think of two exceptions. For one thing, I
remembered incorrectly where my mother got her bachelor's
degree. For another thing, my investigators mentioned to me
that someone had talked about my carrying a briefcase in
high school. I answered that I had carried a briefcase in
eighth grade, but not in high school. The investigators then
pointed out that in 1979 I still remembered carrying a
briefcase in high school, since I recorded in my
autobiography an incident involving a briefcase.
Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 28. Since I clearly remembered the
briefcase in 1979, I agreed that they were right.
Thinking the matter over later, I thought I remembered it
as a result of having been needled for carrying a briefcase
in eighth grade I had decided not to use one in
high school, and did not use one in my freshman and my
sophomore years, but went back to carrying a
briefcase in my third and last year of high school. Since I
recalled that the briefcase incident had happened in
American History class, I concluded that I must have had
that class in my last-year of high school. I then checked my
high school record and found that this was correct. (Fb)
School Records of TJK, E.P. High School.
13. I remembered the name of Joel S.'s sister as Gloria,
but Joel S. told my investigators that her sister's name
was Diane. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #124, Joel S.,
p.2.
More significantly, when I wrote my autobiographical
notes in 1979, I remembered that my mother had given my
address to the daughter of a couple who were friends of
my parents because she thought that the young lady and I
had common interests and she hoped we would get together.
This would have made no sense unless the young lady was
living in or near Ann Arbor, where I was at the time; but
she told my investigators that she had never lived in Ann
Arbor. So it seems that my memory of what my mother wrote
me was wrong. (Unless it was my mother who got the facts
garbled, which is possible.) See (Ac) Autobiog of TJK
1979, p. 150.
14. For an example see (Ad) Autobiog of TJK 1988 (corrected
version), pp. 13, 14.
15. (Qc) Written Reports by Investigator #2, p.5.
16. For example, in (Qb) Written Investigator Reports #34,
47, 59, 60, 82, 85, 124, 146, 154, 161, among others.
17. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #154, Leroy
Weinberg, p.2.
18. When I was a teenager, my mother told me that old Mrs.
Butcher, who lived next door to the V.'s, had said to her
that I was *such* a nice boy, because I always returned her
greeting when I passed her, whereas Norma Jean V. often
failed to return her greeting and walked on by without
looking at her.
19. (Qb) Written Investigator Report, #47, Dr. L.Hz.
20. (Kb) Lincoln Interviews, p. 18. I remember a good deal
of what I talked about with R.Cb. and Dr. L.Hz. On one
occasion the patient who preceded me left in a bad mood,
and, because R.Cb. had a suspicion that this man might be a
wife-beater, she phoned his wife and warned her that her
husband was coming home upset. That got us onto the subject
of domestic abuse. I mentioned that some studies had found
that there was about as much physical abuse of husbands by
wives as vice versa. Dr. L.Hz. answered that the wives
probably didn't do much damage because they weren't strong
enough. "I've had women pound on me," he said, "and it
didn't bother me." I replied, "Some women are strong
enough to hit hard." R.Cb. agreed, and mentioned a local
woman who had knocked some man down. I said that some time
earlier I had read an article in a news magazine (probably
*Time*) about domestic abuse. I mentioned that the article
had taken the same position as Dr. L.Hz.: Because women were
smaller they probably didn't do much damage. But, I
continued, in the next issue of the same magazine there was
a letter from an emergency-room doctor who said that in his
experience women often did plenty of damage, because they
were more likely than men to use weapons; he mentioned
husbands who had been slashed with an axe or scalded with
boiling water. As the conversation continued I asked R.Cb.
and Dr. L.Hz., "Why do they \[the abused women\] marry
jerks like that?" R.Cb. and Dr. L.Hz. answered, "Low
self-esteem; maybe their fathers abused them and they think
that's a normal relationship...\[etc.\]." Either R.Cb.
or Dr. L.Hz. mentioned something about a television program
on the subject.
On other occasions Dr. LHz. and I talked about the
soluble compounds of gold, about gypsum, plaster of Paris,
and Portland cement, and other subjects, and I could go on
and on recounting the details of these conversations, but I
think I've said enough to show that Dr. L.Hz's claim that
I was so quiet as to seem odd is ludicrous.
21. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #34, Dale
Eickelman, pp. 4,5. It is my sophomore year in college, not
high school, that is referred to, since Professor Eickelman
correctly states that I visited his home during the summer
following my freshman year at Harvard.
22. The eight are Larry S., Bob C., Barbara B., Jerry U.,
Bob Pe., Tom Kn., G.Da., Terry L. Six of these eight
friendships are documented, but four are documented only by
my own autobiographies. Two have been confirmed
independently (Bob Pe. by Bob Pe. himself, Tom Kn. by
Tom Kn.'s mother). For references see Chapter III, pp. 79,
87, 88, and associated footnotes. Of the other friends, my
investigators spoke only to one: G.Da., who neither
confirmed nor denied that I was good friends with him. (Qb)
Written Investigator Report #28, G.Da. Actually I was close
to G.Da. only during one school year. With Jerry U. I was
friends from seventh or eighth grade through the summer
following my first year at Harvard; with the others I was
friends for shorter periods. Jerry U., Bob Pe., and Tom Kn.
visited my home, and I visited their homes, on multiple
occasions. I visited the homes of Bob C., G.Da., and Terry L.
on various occasions, but I don't clearly remember that any
of them visited my home. I took two extended excursions with
Bob C. In a letter written in 1958, my mother confirmed that
I had several friends: (Fc) School Records of TJK,
Harvard, p. 18.
23. One reason why Eickelman never encountered any friends
at my house and why I never brought any friends to his house
was that I never much liked him. In fact, I thought
he was somewhat of a creep: (Ac) Autobiog of TJK \[text
unknown\] intended to spend time with him only when he
thrust himself on me \[text unknown\] think of nothing
better to do. Thus, if I had had a friend with me, and if
Eickelman had phoned to suggest that we get together, I
probably would have put him off with some excuse.
(Since our homes were so far apart, Eickelman and I
generally phoned before visiting one another.)
In his interview with my investigators, (Qb) Written
Investigator Report #34, p.2, Professor Eickelman related a
particularly grotesque anecdote about me. Since he may have
related the same anecdote to the FBI, and since the Justice
Department has a habit of leaking things about my case, I
had better take this opportunity to state that the anecdote
is false. Anyone who knows my mother at all well knows that
I would never have dared to do such a thing in her presence.
If I had done it she would have been horrified beyond all
description; when we got home I would have received a
vicious tongue-lashing and I wouldn't have heard the end of
it for months afterward.
Professor Eickelman's memory is playing some trick on
him here. He is perhaps recalling something that either he
or I did not in my mother's presence but under very private
circumstances. I could give a plausible explanation for this
recollection of Professor Eickelman's, but I will refrain
from doing so because I am not anxious to reveal information
that would cause embarrassment both to me and to Professor
Eickelman.
24. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #157, G. and D.W., p.4.
25. (Ba) Journals of TJK, Series III #5, March 26,
1975, pp. 32-36.
26. (Ca) FL #154, letter from me to my parents, late March,
1975, pp. 2,3. Both in this letter and in the journal entry
it is mentioned that Pinkston talked to me about the KGB in
a low tone, so that G.Wi. couldn't hear. However, as we were
driving back down off the mountain I told G.Wi. about what
Pinkston had said to me. Moreover, the next spring (1975),
G.Wi. met Pinkston up on the mountain again, and later told
me that Pinkston was a nice, helpful fellow, "but he did
talk a little bit about the KGB." It was on this second
meeting that G.Wi. learned Pinkston's name. Some time later
he told me that Pinkston had died. I understand that Larry
Davis, the local game warden for the Lincoln area at the
time, had been bringing groceries up to Pinkston, and it's
possible he may be able to confirm some of this information.
27. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #87, Russell Mosny
1996, p.1.
28. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 25.
29. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #30, L.D., p.2.
30. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, p.21.
31. (Da) Ralph Meister's Declaration, p. 2, paragraph 7.
32. Same, pp. 2,3, paragraphs 8-10.
33. For example, (Qb) Written Investigator Reports #6, K.B.,
p.1; #134, Lois Skillen, p.8; #152, E. Wr., p.3. Also see
Note 57.
34. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #151, Chris Waits. (Hj)
*Blackfoot Valley Dispatch*, January 29, 1998, February 5(?),
1998, February 12, 1998.
35. (Qb) Written Investigator Reports.
36. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #79, Patrick
McIntosh, p.1.
37. Same, p.5.
38. Same, p.6.
39. Same, p.8.
40. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #77, John Masters, p.1.
41. Same, p.3.
42. Same, pp. 3, 4.
43. Same, p.5.
44. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #98, W.Pr., pp. 4, 5.
45. Same, p.5.
46. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #28, G.Da., p.4.
47. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #104, Roger
Podewell, p.3.
48. Jeanne En. lists these as the usual participants. See
(Qb) Written Investigator Report #33, K.H. and
Jeanne En., p.13. Dale Es. lists the usual participants as
himself, my brother, my parents, David and Shirley Hbr. (Qb)
Written Investigator Report #32, Dale Es., p.7. I had never
heard of David and Shirley Hbr. until I read this report. At
the one colloquium I attended, the participants were those
I've listed.
49. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #32, Dale Es., pp. 7,8.
50. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #33, K.H. and Jeanne
En., pp. 14, 15.
51. Same, p.10.
52. (Ca) FL #293, letter from David Kaczynski to me, October
1 or 2, 1984.
In reference to the attitudes that my brother and the
En.'s held toward me at the time of Dan's suicide, it may be
worthwhile to quote also another letter of my brother's.
At some point during 1984, knowing that my brother was going
to visit K.H. and Jeanne, I sent him in care of them three
cartoons that I had drawn, with some humorous commentary in
Spanish. In reply Dave wrote me (Ca) FL #289, Summer,
1984, pp. 2-4:
"I ended up having to translate your long letter...
\[It was\] well worth it in light of the jokes which dawned
on us in the process. I gathered that in your historiography
of boasts there was somewhat of a serious message as well.
Your humor is so inventive and so highly original that I
never cease to marvel at it, while at the same time finding
it a pity that it's restricted to such a small audience.
You asked me once whether K.H. and Jeanne are in any way
capable of being offended by coarse humor. Now I can tell
you that \[K.H.\] enjoyed the two cartoons which might have
been considered coarse immensely, whereas Jeanne's
reaction seemed rather complicated. ... \[S\]he pointed
out some very artful touches in your cartoons. And I found
myself very much in agreement with her. Have you ever
thought of trying to sell your cartoons to magazines? ...
I honestly and I believe without \[text unknown\] cartoons
on the average the most interesting I\'ve ever seen.\"
This does not contradict in any specific way what K.H.
and Jeanne told the investigators about me, but it doesn't
comport very well with the image of me that they conveyed.
53. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #33, K.H. and
Jeanne En., pp. 7-10.
54. (Ca) FL #304, letter from me to David Kaczynski, late
spring or summer of 1985, p.1: "I was amused by the Mexican
comic book. (But you should have included a critical
analysis by \[K.H. En.\] explaining the hidden philosophical
messages.)"
(Ca) FL #220, letter from me to David Kaczynski, August
28, 1979, p.2:
"\[K.H.\] sent me a copy of a 'Red Sonja\*' comic
book (footnote: \*An absurd female hero), asserting that
'to imaginative minds it drips of philosophical lessons.'
"In reply I sent him \[mimicking Nietzsche's style\]:
"'I have no time** to listen to thy teaching,
Zarathustra,' said the small man, 'For I must mow my lawn
and tend my melons; I have no time to listen to prophecies.
I have no time to be an arrow of longing for the farther
shore.' (footnote: \*\*\[K.H.\] wrote that he would read
some Nietsche \[sic\], except that he had no time because
he was too busy mowing his lawn, tending \[melons; the rest
of this footnote is cut off on the Xerox copy that I have.\].)
"'How then,' answered Zarathustra, 'hast thou time to
read the book of a naked harlot pretending to be a hero?
Knowest thou not that a dark cloud hangs over men and that
even now are falling one by one the heavy drops that herald
the lighting? What then signify thy lawnmower and thy
melons? Verily, thou art become as the last man.' Thus
spake Zarathustra. - Nietsche \[sic\], *Zarathustra*, part
5." (The footnotes were in the original letter. According
to Nietzsche, the "last man" is a despicable and
degenerate human type.)
This is a sample of the way I used to tease K.H. about
his comic-book philosophy. I intended the teasing to be
gentle and humorous, but it may be that I wounded K.H.
without realizing it.
55. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #29, Peter L. Duren,
pp. 9,10.
56. (Qb) Written Investigator Reports #28, G.Da., p.2; #55,
John Je., pp. 1,2. Ray Janz's story was reported in (Hm)
*San Francisco Chronicle*, April 29, 1996; (Hn) *Chicago
Tribune*, April 16, 1996; (Ja) *Mad Genius*, p. 26. According
to all three of these reports, Janz stated that I used a
pocket protector.
57. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #32, Dale Es., pp. 1,2.
58. Same, p. 4.
59. (Qb) Written Investigator Report #134, Lois Skillen, pp.
3, 6-8.
60. Professor Eickelman reported to my investigators that
Harvard was attempting to recruit him. (Qb) Written
Investigator Report #34, Dale Eickelman, p.1.
61. (Hk) *Scientific American*, May, 1997, pp. 24, 28.

BIN
rech1.docx Normal file

Binary file not shown.

671
rech1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,671 @@
# CHAPTER I
I will begin with one of the biggest lies of all, a kind of
family myth manufactured by my mother.
I have only a vague recollection of the version of this
story that I heard from my parents in childhood. In essence
it was that as a baby I had been hospitalized with a severe
case of hives (urticaria), and that I was so frightened by
this separation from my parents that I was forever after
excessively nervous about being left alone by them.
It is not clear to me why my parents thought I was unduly
afraid of being separated from them. It may have been
because they became accustomed to being away from their own
parents at an especially early age - my mother's mother was
a drunken, irresponsible slut¹ who probably left her
children unattended on frequent occasions, and my father was
an extrovert who spent much of his childhood running with
gangs of boys rather than home (according to the stories he
told me). In any case, as I look back on it now, I don't
think I was any more anxious about being left alone than the
average kid of my age. When I was perhaps six or seven years
old, my mother began leaving me home alone for an hour or
two at a time, and I did not find it difficult to adjust to
this. At about the same age I once attended a movie with my
father in a strange neighborhood far from home, and after
the movie, he left me standing alone outside the theater for
ten or fifteen minutes while he went to get the car. I felt
a good deal of anxiety while waiting for him, but I think
not more than is normal for a kid of that age under such
circumstances. I certainly did not feel panicky nor did I
doubt that my father would return. He told me afterward that
he had left me alone in order to help me get over what he
called my fear of being away from my parents.
My parents retained their belief that I had an unusual fear
of being separated from them until I was thirteen years old.
At that age, I was sent away to summer camp for two weeks.
Though I was somewhat homesick, I had no serious difficulty
in adjusting to the experience, ² and after that, as far as
I can remember, my parents never again mentioned my supposed
fear of being "abandoned" by them - until many years
later, when my mother resuscitated the myth of "that
hospital experience" in exaggerated and melodramatic form.
Her motives for doing so will be explained in Chapter IV.
For the moment, I am concerned only to describe the myth
itself and to refute it.
Here is the myth in my mother's own words, from a letter
that she wrote to me on December 24, 1984:
"\[Your hatred of your parents\] I think, I am convinced,
has its source in your traumatic hospital experience in your
first year of life. You had to be hospitalized with a
sudden, very serious allergy that could have choked off your
breath. In those days hospitals would not allow a parent to
stay with a sick child, and visits were limited to one hour
twice a week. I can still hear you screaming 'Mommy, Mommy!'
in panic as the nurse forced me out of the room. My God! how
I wept. My heart broke. I walked the floor all night
weeping, knowing you were horribly frightened and lonely.
Knowing you thought yourself abandoned and rejected when you
needed your mother the most. How could you, at nine months,
understand why - in your physical misery - you were turned
over to strangers. When I finally brought \[you ³ \] home
you were a changed personality. You were a dead lump
emotionally. You didn't smile, didn't look at us, didn't
respond to us in any way. I was terrified. What had they
done to my baby? Obviously, the emotional pain and shock you
suffered those four days became deeply embedded in your
brain - your sub-conscious. I think you rejected, you hated
me from that time on. We rocked you, cuddled you, talked to
you, read to you - did everything we could think of to
stimulate you. How we loved you, yearned over you. Some
said we spoiled you, were too lenient, doted on you too
much. But you were our beloved son - our first born and we
wanted so much to have you love us back. But I think that
emotional pain and fear never completely left you. Every now
and then throughout your life, I saw it crop up. ..." ⁴
I was surprised when I saw that in this letter my mother
described my hospitalization as having lasted only four
days. She had previously told me - repeatedly - that it had
lasted a week, ⁵ and that I had been "inert", "a dead
lump", for a month after I came home.
Here is what my brother reportedly said about "that
hospital experience" when he was interviewed by the FBI:
"TED had a severe allergic reaction and was hospitalized for
several weeks. His parents were only allowed short daily
visits and TED became unresponsive and withdrawn during his
stay in the hospital." ⁶
"When TED was a year or so old, he was hospitalized after
suffering a 'severe allergic reaction.' His parents were
restricted from visiting him for more than a few minutes a
day, and when he recovered and was taken home two or three
weeks later they noticed that he was markedly unresponsive
and displayed a significantly 'flat effect' (emotionless
appearance). It took weeks and even months for his parents
to re-establish a satisfactory relationship with TED, and
WANDA attributes much of TED's emotional disturbance as an
adolescent to this early trauma." ⁷
"DAVE stated that on four distinct occasions, TED has
displayed a type of 'almost catatonic' behavior which has
long perplexed and mystified his family. The first was his
withdrawal after a three-week hospital stay when he was an
infant." ⁸
Here is what my brother told the *New York Times*:
"David, who had been told the story by his parents, said
that the infant Teddy developed a severe allergy and was
hospitalized for a week. 'There were rigid regulations
about when parents could and couldn't visit,' David said.
He recalled that on two occasions, his parents 'were
allowed to visit him for one hour.'
"After Teddy came home, 'he became very unresponsive,'
David said. 'He had been a smiling, happy, jovial kind of
baby beforehand, and when he returned from the hospital he
showed little emotions \[sic\] for months.'" ⁹
*Newsweek* cited information from federal investigators (who
presumably were relaying information received from my mother
or my brother) as follows:
"The first clue is something that happened when Kaczynski
was only 6 months old. According to federal investigators,
little 'Teddy John,' as his parents called him, was
hospitalized for a severe allergic reaction to a medicine he
was taking. He had to be isolated - his parents were
unable to see him or hold him for several weeks. After this
separation, family members have told the Feds, the baby's
personality, once bubbly and vivacious, seemed to go
'flat.'" ¹⁰
*Time* gave a similar report. ¹¹
The FBI's "302" reports often contain inaccuracies, and
(as we will show later) journalists' reports are extremely
prone to gross inaccuracies that result from carelessness,
incompetence, or intentional lying. But the fact that
several different sources gave roughly similar accounts is a
good indication of the kind of information my brother and
mother had been giving out.
Furthermore, on April 12, 1996, Investigator #1, an
investigator for the Federal Defender's office at Helena,
Montana, interviewed my mother in Washington, D.C. According
to Investigator #1's notes, my mother gave her the story as
follows:
'When Ted was nine or 10 months old, he developed a severe
and sudden allergic reaction to something, his entire body
swelled, and he had severe itching all over. Wanda walked
with him the entire night, and took him to the University of
Chicago-Children's Teaching Hospital first thing in the
morning. She described the hospital visit as very traumatic
for both Ted and his mother. When they arrived, Ted was
taken from Wanda by a nurse and put in a separate room. Ted
started screaming and crying, calling nonstop for his
mother, who also started crying... . That Friday the
hospital called Wanda and said she could come and pick Ted
up, as the swelling had subsided. When Wanda arrived at the
hospital, she was handed her son, who she described as 'a
dead lump.' She said Ted would not respond to her or her
husband at all for weeks after the hospital stay. Wanda and
Theodore spent hours trying to bring Ted out of his shell,
coaxing a smile, or attempting to get him to play with a
toy, mostly without success. ...
"After the stay in the hospital, Wanda described Ted as
much more clingy, and less trusting of strangers. He would
scream whenever he was taken into a strange building,
fearful his parents were going to leave him. About four or
five months after Ted was released from the hospital, he
fell while running in the house, and split his tongue.
Wanda rushed him to the hospital, where he immediately began
screaming and fighting. ...
'Ted's regular pediatric visits were always upsetting, as
Ted acted terrified of doctors." ¹²
How accurate is this picture? Fortunately that question is
easy to resolve, because my mother kept a "Baby Book," or
diary of my development as an infant. The book contained
printed instructions and questions with blank spaces left
for the parent to fill in. (When quoting from the Baby Book,
I will put the printed matter in italics and material
written by my mother in ordinary type.) The following
excerpt from the Baby Book includes every word of my
mother's account of "that hospital experience," from the
first appearance of the symptoms to my apparently complete
recovery.
My age at the time was just over nine months.
"*FORTY-FIRST WEEK. Dates, from* Feb. 26 *to* Mar 5
\[1943\]
"Saturday, the 27th \[of February\] Mother noticed small red
splotches on baby's stomach and neck, as the day progressed
the splotches spread. In the evening we took him to the
hospital. The doctor diagnosed them as hives. Sunday
\[February 28\] the hives were worse but baby seemed not
effected \[sic\] by them. We took him for a long ride in his
buggy. Shortly after we returned we noticed the baby had a
fever. Called the hospital and was told to give him frequent
baths & 1/2 aspirin every 3 hrs. Monday morning \[March 1\]
the baby was examined at Bobs Roberts \[Hospital\] by
several doctors. The consensus \[sic\] of opinion was that
baby had a bad case of urticaria \[hives, rash\] & should be
left at the hospital. Wednesday \[March 3\], mother went to
visit baby. The doctors still think he has an extreme case
of urticaria but are not sure. The \[sic\] omitted \[sic\]
eggs from his diet. Mother felt very sad about baby. She
says he is quite subdued, has lost his abandoned virve
\[sic\] & aggressiveness and has developed an
institutionalized look.
"*FORTY-SECOND WEEK*. *Dates, from* Mar. 5 *to* Mar. 12
\[1943\]
"Baby's home from hospital. Perfectly healthy But quiet
and unresponsive after his experience. Hope his sudden
removal to hospital and consequent unhappiness will not harm
him.
"Later in the week - Baby is quite himself again. Vivacious
and demanding. Says 'bye-bye' by waving his hand.
\[Etc.\]" ¹³
According to hospital records ¹⁴, I was admitted on March 1,
1943 and released on March 6, so I was hospitalized for five
days. Since the statement that I was quite myself again
could not have been written later than March 12, it took me
*at most* six days (and possibly much less time) to make an
apparently complete recovery. It should also be noted that a
careful study of my medical records has turned up *no*
mention of my supposed unresponsiveness. Furthermore, on
September 6, 1996, my Aunt Freda (Freda Dombek Tuominen) was
interviewed in Gainesville, Florida by two investigators
working on my case. She told them that she was away on a
two-week vacation when I was hospitalized from March 1 to
6, 1943. When she returned, someone mentioned to her that I
had been in the hospital, but after that she heard nothing
more about the episode until it was publicized in the media
following my arrest. ¹⁵ Since Freda was very close to my
parents during the 1940's, this is a clear indication that
*at that time*, my mother did not attach much importance to
the hospitalization and that the effect on me was not
obviously serious.
What about my mother's statement that "Ted's regular
pediatric visits were always upsetting, as Ted acted
terrified of doctors?" ¹² That is another lie. The Baby
Book and my medical records show four, and only four,
instances in which I appeared to be afraid of doctors or
nurses, and two of these occurred *before* "that hospital
experience." Here are the corresponding entries from the
Baby Book and the medical records:
"*FIFTH WEEK. Dates, from* June 19 *to* June 26 \[1942\],
"... When the doctor was handling him today he cried a great
deal. ... Perhaps he was frightened of the unfamiliar
surroundings and handling." ¹⁶
"*SEVENTEENTH WEEK. Dates, from* Sept. 11 *to* Sept. 18
\[1942\].
"... Sept. 15. When taken for his periodic
examination the child became very frightened of the
doctor." ¹⁷
In the medical records the two foregoing examinations are
recorded, but no mention is made of my reaction to the
doctor, ¹⁸ which probably indicates that the doctor did not
consider my reaction unusual.
My hospitalization occurred during the latter part of my
forty-first week. About a month later, the following
reaction was reported in the Baby Book:
"*FORTY-SIXTH WEEK. Dates, from* 4/2 *to* 4/9 \[1943\].
"This week we visited the hospital with Teddy. When mother
took him in to be undressed & weighed Teddy saw the nurses
in their white uniforms & immediately HOWLED. It's evident
he remembered his sojurn \[sic\] in the hospital. It took
about 10 min. for mother to calm him. When the doctor
entered the little room that he was taken to after being
weighed there was no definite reaction other than interest
in her, but as soon as she attempted to examine him he
yowled." ¹⁹
The hospital record of this examination does not mention my
fearful reaction. ²⁰
The last instance in which I showed fear of medical
personnel is mentioned in my medical records, but not the
Baby Book (which does not go beyond December 25, 1943):
"June 27, 1944. ... Reluctant to carry examination,
child is fearful of white coats since his visit for repair
of his tongue." ²¹
The reference is to an injury to my tongue ²² that had
occurred about two months earlier, on April 29, 1944. Note
that this extract from the medical records clearly implies
that prior to the tongue injury, I was *not* fearful of
medical personnel. That I was not afraid of doctors or
nurses for at least nine or ten months preceding my tongue
injury is confirmed by the absence of any mention in the
Baby Book or the medical records of any such fear on my part
between April 9, 1943 (about a month after my
hospitalization) and April 29, 1944 (the date of my tongue
injury), even though the medical records and the Baby Book
report that I was examined at the University of Chicago
clinics ²³ on May 18, 1943, June 13, 1943, October 19, 1943,
January 11, 1944, and January 18, 1944. Moreover, the Baby
Book's one-year inventory of the child's development (late
May, 1943, less than three months after "that hospital
experience") includes the question, "*Does he* \[the
baby\] *show persistent fear of anything?*" My mother left
the question blank. ²⁴
*After* my tongue injury (which, by the way, did not require
hospitalization), my mother told a doctor that I was "quite
fearful of hospitals" (see extract below, April 4, 1945).
But that I had no *long-lasting* fear of doctors or
hospitals is confirmed by the following extracts from the
medical records ²⁵:
"June 13, 1943. ... Healthy w-d \[well-developed?\]
well nourished infant. No pathological findings."
(No mention of unresponsiveness or fear of doctors.)
"April 4, 1945... appetite excellent. Plays well
with other children. Quite fearful (?) of hospitals."
(Evidently the doctor is recording information furnished by
my mother. The question mark after "fearful" is in the
original and possibly indicates skepticism on the part of
the doctor. Further along in the report of this same
examination:)
"Sturdy, well nourished boy with good color who tries to
manipulate his mother by temper \[?\] outbursts. Submits
\[illegible\] but not quickly \[or quietly?\] to
examination - after she is sent from the room. Quite
agreeable at conclusion of examination."
(The foregoing entry contradicts my mother's claim that I
was afraid of being left by my parents, since the departure
of my mother calmed me and caused me to submit to the
examination.)
"January 4, 1946... A well nourished \[?\]
adequately muscled \[?\] very whiny little boy."
"April 10, 1946... A whiny but fairly cooperative
boy... ."
"October 16, 1947... A pleasant, quiet, alert,
slender boy... ."
"December 8, 1947... A friendly, intelligent
youngster who is not acutely ill. He is extremely
inquisitive of all that is said and requests explanations."
The foregoing include all of the passages in my surviving
medical records up to age 6 that have any bearing on my
behavior in the presence of doctors or nurses. So much for
my mother's claim that "Ted's regular pediatric visits
were always upsetting, as Ted acted terrified of doctors."
According to the *Washington Post*, "Ted had an almost
paralyzing uneasiness around strangers, a reaction, again,
that Wanda traced back to Ted's childhood
hospitalization." ²⁶
Apart from the few cases in which I showed fear of doctors
or nurses, the Baby Book reports two, and only two, cases in
which I was frightened by strangers, and both of these cases
occurred *before* my "hospital experience."
"*ELEVENTH WEEK. Dates, from* July 31 *to* Aug 7 \[1942\]
"Twice this week the baby was on the verge of crying when
approached by unfamiliar persons. After a bit of handling
and talking to by the strangers he became very friendly,
cooing and smiling in response to their overtures." ²⁷
How did I react to strangers (apart from doctors and nurses)
*after* the "hospital experience?" Only two pages in the
Baby Book provide relevant information. The one-year
inventory of the child's development instructs the parent:
"*Underline each of the following terms which seems
descriptive of the child's behavior. Doubly underline those
which are shown very frequently or in a marked degree* ... ."
The Baby Book then lists thirteen terms. One of them is
"shyness," and my mother underlined it once. (The other
terms are "curiosity," which my mother underlined doubly;
"excitability," "impulsiveness," "cautiousness,"
"jealousy," "stubbornness," "cheerfulness",
"sensitiveness," "boisterousness," all of which my
mother underlined once; and "irritability,"
"listlessness," "placidity," which my mother did not
underline at all. ²⁸ The same terms were listed in the
nine-month inventory, and there my mother underlined
"curiosity" doubly, she underlined "excitability,"
"impulsiveness," "stubbornness," and "boisterousness"
once, and she underlined none of the others. ²⁹)
Further along in the one-year inventory we find:
"*Does child show greater interest in children or in
adults? Describe*. Either definitely likes or dislikes
adults Loves to tussle with other children *Is he usually
shy or friendly with strange women?* either
*men?* either *children?* friendly *Does he show any
special preferences for certain persons?* Yes
*Describe* For unaccountable reasons will either be very
friendly or unfriendly to strangers. But almost always
friendly to people he knows." ²⁸
About seven weeks after the "hospital experience" and
three weeks before the one-year inventory, we find in the
Baby Book:
"*FORTY-NINTH WEEK. Dates, from* 4/23 *to* 4/30 \[1943\].
"When the door buzzer rings Teddy, when in his walker,
immediately skoots \[sic\] to the door, no matter what he's
occupied with at the time. When not in the walker he insists
on being carried or assisted in going himself." ³⁰
Since I was so anxious to meet visitors, it's clear that I
had no particular fear of strangers and was not excessively
shy. The statement that I had "an almost paralyzing fear of
strangers" going back to my "childhood hospitalization"
is another lie.
Did my hospitalization at the age of nine months have any
lasting effect on my personality or behavior? I do not know
the answer to that question. But it is obvious that if the
experience tended to make me permanently fearful of doctors
or of strangers, or if it made me less social, then the
effect was so mild that it is not clear whether there was
any effect at all.
Psychologists consulted by my defense team searched the
literature for reports of empirical studies of children who
had suffered separation from their parents at an early age.
They found only one study ³¹ that was closely relevant to my
case. This study shows that my reaction to hospitalization
and my recovery from it were quite normal for an infant
hospitalized under those conditions. While the study found
that all "overt" effects of hospitalization in such
infants disappeared within 80 days, at most, and usually in
a fraction of that time, the infants were not observed for a
long enough period to determine whether there were any
subtler, long-lasting effects.
Thus it remains an open question whether my hospitalization
had any permanent effect on my personality. The aim of this
chapter has not been to prove that there could not have been
such an effect, but that whatever that effect may have been,
it was not what my mother and brother have described.
My mother's and brother's motives for lying about me will
be dealt with later. (See Appendix I for further evidence of
my mother's untruthfulness.)
\* \* \* \* \* \*
The passage from the Baby Book that describes my "hospital
experience" provides an example of the way the media lie.
In an article in the *Washington Post*, journalists Serge F.
Kovaleski and Lorraine Adams quoted the Baby Book as
follows:
"Feb. 27. 1943. Mother went to visit baby. ... Mother
felt very sad about baby. She says he is quite subdued, has
lost his verve and aggressiveness and has developed an
institutionalized look.
"March 12, 1943. Baby home from hospital and is healthy but
quite unresponsive after his experience. Hope his sudden
removal to hospital and consequent unhappiness will not harm
him." ³²
Compare this with the accurate transcription of the passage
given a few pages back. Kovaleski and Adams have made
important changes. On February 27 I was still at home. I was
not hospitalized until March 1, and the entry that Kovaleski
and Adams dated "Feb. 27" actually refers to March 3.
Kovaleski and Adams assign the date March 12 to an entry
that was obviously written earlier, and they completely omit
the entry that shows that on or before March 12 I had
already recovered completely from "that hospital experience".
Kovaleski and Adams altered not only the dates but also the
wording of the passage. The most important change was that,
where the Baby Book states that I was "quiet and
unresponsive," Kovaleski and Adams wrote that I was "quite
unresponsive." ³³
The effect of these obviously intentional changes is to give
the impression that the "hospital experience" and its
consequences were much more long-lasting and severe than
they really were.
## NOTES TO CHAPTER I
1. (Ae) Autobiog of Wanda, entire document. (Cb) FL
Supplementary Item #4, letter from my Aunt Freda to my
mother, October 1, 1986. Supported by oral communications
to me from my mother and my uncle Benny Dombek up to 1979.
2. (Ac) Autobiog of TJK 1979, p. 36: "I felt rather
homesick at this place, but not excessively so. I got along
alright." (Ab) Autobiog of TJK 1959, p. 5 has: "Up to
quite recently... I was very dependent on \[my
parents\] in that I became unhappy if far away from them for
any length of time, say a couple of days or more. Before
coming to Harvard \[at the age of sixteen\], I was greatly
afraid that I would suffer much from homesickness, but after
a couple of weeks of unhappiness, this no longer bothered me
at all. The ties seem to have snapped completely, as it no
longer bothers me at all to be away from home."
3. A small part of the original letter is missing here, but
it is clear from the context that the word "you" should
appear.
4. (Ca) FL #297, letter from my mother to me, December
24, 1984.
5. Both in (Ab) Autobiog of TJK 1959, p. 1 and (Ac)
Autobiog of TJK 1979, p.1, I gave the period of
hospitalization as a week. I could only have gotten that
information from my parents - probably my mother, since my
father rarely said anything about "that hospital
experience."
6. (Na) FBI 302 number 1, p. 3.
7. (Na) FBI 302 number 2, p. 6.
8. (Na) FBI 302 number 3, p. 3.
9. (Ha) *NY Times Nat*., May 26, 1996, p. 22, column 3.
10. (Hf) *Newsweek*, April 22, 1996, p. 29.
11. (Hg) *Time*, April 22, 1996, p. 46.
12. (Ka) Interview of Wanda by Investigator #1, pp. 1,2.
13. (Bc) Baby Book, pp. 111, 112.
14. (Ea) Med Records of TJK, U. Chi., March 1-6, 1943, pp.
13, 14, 19.
15. (Qa) Oral report from Investigator #2, February 5, 1997.
The fact that the duration of the vacation was two weeks is
from (Qa) Oral report of Investigator #3, February 18, 1997.
According to (Ra) Oral report from Dr. K., March 29, 1997,
in a later interview Freda told Dr. K. that she was no
longer sure that she was away on vacation at the time of my
hospitalization. Instead, as a college student, she may have
been absorbed in her studies and temporarily out of touch
with my parents. But she still affirmed that she had been
told nothing about "that hospital experience" beyond the
bare mention of the fact that I had been in the hospital.
(Ra) Oral Report from Dr. K., February 12, 1998, and (Rb)
Written Information Confirmed by Dr. K., item #1, repeat
this same information, but give May 8, 1997 as the date on
which Dr. K. obtained the information from Freda. Note that
I have a record of receiving this information from Dr. K.
on March 29, 1997. So either Freda gave Dr. K. the same
information twice in different interviews, or else I
inadvertently wrote "March 29" for "May 29" when I dated
the information, or else Dr. K. made an error about the
date.
In any case, the most important parts of the foregoing
information have been confirmed in writing by
Investigator #2. (Qc) Written Reports by Investigator #2, p.
1: "Freda Tuominen was away on vacation when Ted was
hospitalized as an infant. Upon her return she heard that
Ted had been in the hospital but heard nothing about it
\[sic\] the hospitalization until she read about it in the
media."
16. (Bc) Baby Book, p. 74.
17. Same, p. 85.
18. (Ea) Med Records of TJK, U. Chi., June 23, 1942, p. 7;
September 15, 1942, p. 8.
19. (Bc) Baby Book, p. 113.
20. (Ea) Med Records of TJK, U. Chi., April 6, 1943, p. 12.
21. Same, June 27, 1944, p. 26.
22. Same, April 29, 1944, p. 25.
23. The May 18, 1943 examination is reported in (Bc) Baby
Book, p. 66, but not in the medical records, from which a
page appears to be missing. The other four examinations are
recorded in (Ea) Med Records of TJK, U. Chi., June 13, 1943
and October 19, 1943, p. 23; January 11 and 18, 1944, p. 24.
The "7/13/43" examination reported in (Bc) Baby Book, p.
66, is an error on the part of my mother. It should be
6/13/43, as is shown by the fact that next to 7/13/43, my
mother has the notation "smallpox vaccination," and the
medical records report the vaccination on June 13, 1943.
24. (Bc) Baby Book, p. 122.
25. (Ea) Med Records of TJK, U. Chi., June 13, 1943, p. 23;
April 4, 1945, p. 26; January 4, 1946, p. 27; April 10,
1946, p. 29; October 16, 1947, p. 33; December 8,
1947, p. 34.
26. (Hb) *Washington Post*, June 16, 1996, p. A20.
27. (Bc) Baby Book, p. 76.
28. Same, p. 122.
29. Same, p. 107.
30. Same, p. 114.
31. (La) Schaffer and Callender, "Psychologic Effects of
Hospitalization," *Pediatrics*, October, 1959. This study
considered only babies who were not being breast-fed at the
time they entered the hospital. I fitted into this group
since, by the age of nine months, I was no longer being
breast-fed. See (Bc) Baby Book, p. 104.
32. (Hb) *Washington Post*, June 16, 1996, p. A20. The three
dots appear in the excerpt as printed in the *Post*.
33. My mother first wrote in the Baby Book that I was
"Perfectly healthy but quite and unresponsive." She then
crossed out the "e" at the end of "quite" and inserted
an "e" between the "i" and the "t" to make the word
"quiet." My attorneys Judy Clarke and Quin Denvir examined
the original of the Baby Book (in the possession of the
FBI) and confirmed that the correction appeared to have been
made with the same ink and the same pen as the rest of the
writing in the Baby Book, so that there was no reason to
doubt its authenticity. Since "quite and unresponsive"
would make no sense, and since the correction was clear and
unmistakable, the alteration of "quiet and unresponsive"
to "quite unresponsive" was not an innocent error but
intentional deception on the part of Kovaleski and Adams.