Misty “The Witch” vs. Michelle “The Cyclops”


“I’m a witch,” Misty said to throw a big old matzo ball on the restaurant table between us. She didn’t throw that into her intro, but I learned that she was a witch before I learned that she was an Anderson, a Smith, or a Jones. If she mentioned her last name, I don’t remember it. I remember that she was a witch, however, because I never met a witch before, self-proclaimed or otherwise. It was also such a noteworthy characteristic to me, because it was to her. Being a witch was more important to her than being an Anderson, Smith or whatever her last name was. When I asked her what she did for a living, she answered, and when I asked her who her friends were, she answered that too, but she didn’t answer any of those questions with the same passion, spirit, or animated enthusiasm she had for her decision to become a witch. When I told friends, family, and co-workers about my date, I referred to Misty as Misty “The Witch”. When they found that characterization so entertaining, I kind of dropped back. I felt a little guilty for characterizing such a nice woman in such a manner, but when I dropped further back and put some thought into it, I realized that’s probably how she would’ve wanted it. 

Misty didn’t list this particular nugget of information on her online, dating profile. Who would? Green people who wear pointy hats probably don’t get asked out very often, but she wasn’t one of those typer of witches. “I’m a Wiccan,” she explained. “It’s a modern, nature-based pagan religion. I have a twenty-four quart, deep cooking pot, but I don’t own a cauldron. I own my own home, but there’s no candy plastered on the outside to lure unsuspecting children, and I don’t think I’ve ever cackled,” she said to try to put me at ease. 

I don’t know if it’s based on the shows we watch, but when we meet someone who thinks so different, 180 degrees different from us, we expect to learn that they made calculated, well-informed decisions in life, especially when it concerns spiritual and mystical pursuits. In my experience, most of them are like most of us. They drift around searching for something meaningful in life, to give their live meaning, until they find something. Some try to find something that aligns with their personal beliefs, others align their personal beliefs with something they found. In my brief interrogation of Misty, I found that she was a little of both. She decided to become a Wiccan for some of the same reasons I played Donkey Kong when I was a kid. She thought it sounded fun and cool. She was as uninformed, insecure, and vulnerable as the rest of us at one point in her life, then she joined that group. Did find a part of herself that she never knew in that group, and she loved being that in front of other like-minded people, or did she stay so long that she either conformed to group thought and became who they wanted her to be? Regardless, she developed strong bonds with her fellow Wiccans that lasted years.

As with most insecure and vulnerable people, Misty put her best foot forward on our first (and as it turned out our only) date. She threw that big old matzo ball out there with some conviction framing it. ‘I’m a witch, deal it!’ her expression said, and deal with it I did, in my own obsessively curious way. I don’t know what was on my face, but her smile told me she knew she struck a chord. 

“And now for something completely different,” I thought, recalling that old Monty Python line. I was so fascinated that I dove right in. I asked superficial questions, in-depth questions, and then questions that made her so uncomfortable that she laughed before answering them.  

Most of my questions were self-serving. I didn’t really care that Misty chose what I considered an alternative religion, but I did want to know why. I wanted to know why she joined, how her views changed over the years, and I wanted to see if her beliefs could challenge mine. The questions I asked weren’t the polite type everyone asks, and I didn’t ask leading questions to have her view me as compassionate or open-minded. I wanted answers to this curious, life-altering decision of hers, and I went for the jugular, asking questions that we’re not supposed to ask.

Most people refrain from asking uncomfortable questions, because they don’t enjoy watching other people squirm, but Misty made it quite clear she wasn’t a squirmer. She might have been squirming, uncomfortable, and vulnerable when we first met, but who isn’t? By the time I worked my way past the obligatory, nice questions and worked my way into the questions we’re not supposed to ask, Misty was chuckling (as opposed to cackling). Some of the questions I ask offend some recipients, and that’s fine with me, unless they offer me a specific reason for why the question hurt their feelings. It’s happened, and when it does I back off and apologize when warranted and without excuses or qualifiers. Most of the people who intrigue me enough to work past the initial questions, prove to me that they enjoy questions that test their meddle.   

“I don’t know how you get away with asking such things,” a witness to some of my questions said. 

“I think they know I’m just curious,” I said. 

Due to the fact that Misty loved talking about her decision, and I was absolutely obsessed with wanting to know what drove her to that decision, the idea she was a witch dominated our conversations. I was so excited by this conversation topic that Misty couldn’t tell if I was more interested in joining her religion or her, so she asked me if I wanted to join her religion. I said no. I told her I was just curious. She smiled at that. I didn’t know why she smiled at first, as I thought it should’ve disappointed her that I had no desire to become a warlock, but I realized that she thought she had her answer. It was an excited smile, until I eventually informed her that I wasn’t interested in her either. 

The Real Eye 

Michelle had no secret potions, magical spells, or natural elixirs to help me, but she did have “friends in the industry” who she thought might be able to help end my desperate search for a quality apartment at a reasonable rate. She said she knew people in real estate who specialize in helping prospective clients find quality apartments at below market rents. “My friend can not only help you find a top-of-the-line apartment,” she said, “but she will haggle with the landlord over rent, and her fee for doing so will be paid by a landlord who will be grateful that she found a tenant for them.” That made total sense to me. Who wouldn’t jump at such an offer, I thought, until Michelle brought up her finder’s fee. 

Your finder’s fee?” I asked. “What are you doing here? You’re not helping me find an apartment. You’re pointing me to someone who can. How much do you want for your ability to point?” 

“I tell you what,” she said with a grin. “You take me to lunch, and we’ll call it square.” 

In the space of fifteen seconds mired in uncomfortable silence, I developed about three different attack strategies to illustrate the absurdity of her proposal. These attacks would’ve also informed her that I wasn’t as naive as she thought I was, but I also knew that one of the only reasons she wanted to help me was that she appeared to have something of a crush on me. I ended that silent stand off with one word: “Fine!” 

Moments after we sat at the restaurant, Michelle wet her eye with a bottled solution, and that bottle was generic except for a small prescription tag. No big deal, I thought, until she put the solution in two more times before the server could take our drink orders. If she needs to water her eye once in such a short time span that’s a thing, because I don’t know when she watered it last, twice might suggest she’s experiencing a particular dryness, but three times is a big old matzo ball to put in the space between us.

“Why do you keep doing that?” I asked. I could’ve, and probably should’ve just ignored it, but I live by the rule that it’s better to ask questions, even embarrassing “I don’t want to talk about it” questions, than it is to remain silent about the elephant in the room, or a big, old matzo ball hovering atop a table. A matzo ball isn’t an ugly thing, and it isn’t beautiful. It’s also not a stand alone meal. It is what we make it, when we surround it with tasty items. Until we do that, it’s just a bunch of ground up crackers and eggs. If we avoid asking about it, or we purposefully avoid talking about it, it amasses its power through silence, until it’s the only thing we want to talk about, and it influences every conversation we have, until one of us develops the fortitude to address it. It gathers a life of its own in our conversations, until both parties are so uncomfortable that someone has to put a pin in it.  

“I have to. It’s what they call an ocular prosthesis,” she said, using the compassionate, sympathetic term for an artificial eye, “and if I don’t keep it wet, it gets irritated, it burns, and there’s a possibility that I could lose it.” 

As if to bolster her contention, she wet it a fourth time. I don’t know much about an ocular prosthesis, but I understand that we probably don’t have the technology at this point to have them produce their own liquid. I also understand why a sufferer needs to keep it wet, but I don’t know how often their physician directs them to wet it, but Michelle was dousing it at such regular intervals that it was obvious that she wanted us to address the matter before we moved on. 

“What happened?” I asked. 

“It was … a car accident,” she replied. She swallowed those words, as if they were so weighted with trauma that I should just drop it. My obsessive need to ask questions people are afraid to ask weren’t applicable here, because she did not choose a lifestyle, an alternative way of thinking, or a different religion. This injury was the result of an accident that obviously still haunted her and damaged her quality of life. She made it clear any questions would not be appreciated, except the look on her face suggested she did want to talk about it, but she wouldn’t answer any questions. It was so confusing that the tension couldn’t have been more weighted if she body slammed the carcass of her dead aunt on our table, wet and festooned with seaweed and added, “And I don’t want to talk about it.” She hit me from so many corners so quickly that I didn’t know how to approach this matter. I felt trapped between what I wanted to do, what she apparently wanted me to do, and what she apparently didn’t want me to do. I was so cautious that my sense of caution obviously spoke volumes, and it appeared to wound her.

Those of us who have been in life-altering, soul-crushing accidents know that the only cure is to relive an accident so many times, over so many years, that you’re eventually desensitized to it. The vein-straightening daymares and nightmares I had actually helped me drain the shock, but that took decades. Back when I was sitting in this restaurant with Michelle, I was still a mess of emotions on the topic car accidents. I developed my own I-don’t-want-to-talk-about-it phobia of car accidents. Even with all that, the idea that a car accident robbed Michelle of an eyeball rattled me.

I was a wreck mentally, on the topic, but she was physically impaired. What’s worse, I asked myself while she spoke. I still had all my appendages and organs in working order, but her impairment reminded me how easily our situations could be reversed. It wasn’t fate, I decided as she spoke, and it didn’t have anything to do with skills, smarts, or stupidity. The reason she sat on one side of the table without an eye, and I sat with two full functional ones, was luck. The officer at the scene of my accident told me that. “You’re lucky,” he said, “You could’ve and should’ve been hurt much worse.” Lucky, I thought, how could I be lucky? My mom died in this car accident. What’s the definition of lucky? Michelle, and her ocular prosthesis, gave me a definition of lucky.

Anything can happen in a car accident, could turn out to be an excellent, working title for the first chapter of my autobiography, and the exploration of the aftermath would’ve littered the next three to four chapters that followed. A driver can hit someone from behind, at a relatively slow speed, and both drivers could incur once-in-a-lifetime, freak injuries. It happens. It happens every day. It happened to Genie. Genie was a co-worker who became a good friend over time and through numerous conversations. Genie and I spoke at least once a day for about a decade. We became such good friends that I finally broke her down one day and asked her a question we’re not supposed to ask, “What happened to you?” 

“I got into a car accident.” Her words didn’t contain Michelle’s foreboding drama and trauma. Genie was a “just the facts” kind of gal. “I don’t remember anything about it, mercifully,” she added. “All I can tell you is what the policemen told my parents. I can tell you that I never sped. I memorized the speed limits of every street I traveled on. I never rolled through a stop sign, and I always turned on my blinker, even when it was obvious which way I was turning. The police say it was a simple fender bender that happens every day, but the force of the impact caused my head to hit in the windshield just so.” Genie didn’t add that the definition of “just so” would leave her with a lifelong mental impairment, but it wasn’t necessary for her to complete those dots. 

I thought about the terrifying car accident I was involved in that took my mother’s life. “You are so lucky you lived through this?” the one-scene officer said to presumably distract me from the fact that I just lost my mother. I also thought about Genie, and Genie’s lifelong mental impairment based on the fact that she hit her head on the windshield “just so”, and as those terrifying thoughts left my brain, I accidentally looked into Michelle’s fake eye. The trauma I experienced when someone said those words car accident my empathy went beyond anxiety to phobia.

“It was almost as if he intended to drive into me,” an elderly woman told the police officer, responding to the call of our accident. It was the elderly woman’s fault, as she crossed the centerline into my lane of traffic, but I could’ve avoided it. I, of course, did not intend to drive into her, but I choked, froze, or whatever you want to call it when I saw her headed toward me. My anxiety/phobia incapacitated me so much that I was not mentally capable of twisting the wrist in such a way that I would’ve avoided that accident, so I could see how she would come to that conclusion that I intended to drive into her. I remembered freezing, and I didn’t at the same time, as if I subconsciously edited that portion of that fender bender out to avoid me having to ask those questions about myself. A simple twist of the wrist would’ve avoided the accident. I wasn’t drunk, or in anyway impaired. I was just terrified. To my lifelong embarrassment, I choked, froze up, or however one wants to put it.  

Freezing up like that is so weird, and so embarrassing that we never talk about it. How does one talk about deep psychological scars that lead to an embarrassing silent scream that can cause it to appear that we’re intending to drive into another car? It’s so confusing that we choose not to deal with it or talk about it, until someone says something we’re not supposed to say, like, “There’s something wrong with you my man.” That’s something the careless say if we ever are dumb enough to reveal our wounds to them. “There’s something fundamentally wrong with you, something deep in your layers that you might want to seek counseling to rectify that before it’s too late.” 

Most good friends and family don’t say such things, but if we offer them our vulnerabilities, they duck into a hole and come out with eyes that say so much more. We all know that look. Michelle knew that look too, and she saw it when I looked into her artificial eye. 

Once I got over the daymare, Michelle started dotting her eye with the bottled solution again. I tried to be sympathetic, or empathetic regarding the nature of her injury, but I obviously couldn’t keep “the look” off my face. I don’t know what look I had on my face, but “the look” appeared to either disappoint or insult Michelle. I tried to get the look off my face, and I succeeded, then I failed. I tried talking over the the look, around it, with it, and through it with various conversation topics, but she just kept dotting. I could see her ingesting each look, and I knew that my looks meant more to her than any words I said. 

I knew Michelle had romantic aspirations long before our lunch, and I knew the looks I gave her put an end to that, but she wouldn’t stop dotting, and I couldn’t stop looking. 

After our lunch was over, I drove Michelle to the location of the cherry apartment she promised to help me find, and the real estate agent was there with her pitch. It was a cherry apartment, but I hesitated. I didn’t want to rent the first apartment on the agent’s list. I wanted a menu of options from which to choose, and these two women had me all hopped up on the idea that this real estate agent was something of a Helen Keller type miracle worker for those seeking quality apartments. I made a mistake believing that I might have a menu of options, and Michelle eventually seized on my hesitation. 

In the aftermath of the afternoon, I don’t think I devoted a half-hour of thought to any events that occurred that day. When I did think about it, I didn’t think good thoughts or bad thoughts. It was just something that happened. 

It wasn’t until about a week later, when I ran into Michelle, “Hey, whatever happened to that apartment?” I asked.

“Apartment?” 

“The one your real estate agent showed me,” I said. “If it’s still available, I think I’ll take it. Tell your friend.”

“I took it already,” she said. “I moved in yesterday. I’m living there now.” She searched my face for a look. I might be mischaracterizing it for my own narrative, but I think she was searching for a look of pain that matched the pain she presumably felt from my looks. I think she took the cherry apartment to spite me and the looks I accidentally gave her and her fake eye.    

Did Michelle sign that lease to be vindictive, I don’t know, but we’ve all had loads of people do some of the oddest things to “getevenwithem”. What was she getting even with, I wondered, because the worst charge you could make against me was that I unintentionally gave her looks I couldn’t control that she could interpret as condescending compassion. The funny thing about spiteful intent is that it rarely hits in the ways we dream up in vindictive daydreams. We dream up “When he finds out … Oh, it will be delicious” theatrical reactions. 

Michelle and her friend found me an apartment that I considered a cherry location. When she took it, I found another one. She basically forced me to do my own homework, which I started before she brought up her friend. Women have broken my heart more than once, two put a dent in my heart that might never heal, but Michelle did not accomplish either of those feats. I didn’t think about this moment for decades, until I sat down to write this. Now that I am thinking about it, I wonder if Michelle ever thinks back on her attempt to create this big, old matzo ball to place between us and deliciously alter our relationship in her favor. I wonder if she celebrates this moment as her victory now, or did that rational wisdom that only comes with age catch up to her to re-characterize her actions as a little pointless and pretty petty? 

Beat The Beatles


“The Beatles are overrated,” wrote someone who probably wears black sweaters, prefers goatees, and still considers the ascot a mandatory fashion accessory. “While many find enjoyment in singing along to Hey Jude or I Want To Hold Your Hand, I find the vast majority of [The] Beatles’ lyrics insultingly simple, and [their] individual musical talent is surpassed in almost every regard.” Those who wear normal clothes don’t truly care about such accessories. To us, song is sacred. When we hear The Beatles, we might hear evidence of the critic’s complaints, but we view the songs they created as simplistic brilliance.  

It would be a fool’s errand to try to suggest that one artist’s artistic expression is superior to another, but the author draws many comparisons. She focuses most of her critique on the technical proficiency of The Beatles stating that three of the four musicians are inferior to their peers. The author conceded that George Harrison proved a gifted musician, but The Beatles restrained his abilities in most of their songs. This begs the question, does the sacred nature of the song require some level of restraint? We might enjoy hearing gifted virtuosos play their instruments, but how often does technical mastery lend itself to crafting great songs? We can all think of some songs where instruments commanded the music, but even the most gifted musicians learn to restrain their abilities for the sake of the song.     

When we attempt to examine our favorite songs dispassionately, we might acknowledge that some of the lyrics might be simple, and that a novice might be able to play them on a piano, but as Bill Murray once said, “It just doesn’t matter”. We enjoy a clever relationship between the lyrics and the music. Our favorite composers often write lyrics for the sole purpose of developing a relationship with the music.  

Most people will express awe over an eighteen-minute guitar solo at a concert. My question is do they really appreciate an eighteen-minute solo, or do they want to appreciate it? I might be alone, but I consider solos, in the midst of a rock concert, self-indulgent drivel. “Get back to the songs!” I want to yell. Unless someone wants to play guitar, and they want to learn from the masters, I don’t understand their appreciation. Unless they want to say they love it, so they can say they love it, because that’s just kind of what we do, I guess. Some of them, and I’ve met them, actually appreciate a big long solo so much that they time it. Perhaps they think a big, long solo from a guitar god gives them their money’s worth, or something, but I don’t understand it. 

***

An argument put forth by Ashawnta Jackson, however, suggests that we don’t really consider bands like the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys great. By enjoying their music as much as we do, she writes, we’re just doing what we’re told. We don’t know any better. She appears to believe that the underlying reason 1965-69 bands are still part of the modern canon is a result of a multi-generational mass delusion based on an institutional, repetitive messaging. She writes that others chose this music for us, and we haven’t examined those who decided what music we are to enjoy well enough.    

The inference is that hundreds of millions of people throughout the world still love the music of these bands because everyone from the corporate types to the DJ’s constantly play them, and our parents and uncles and aunts have propagated this notion that we should continue enjoying listening to the music they enjoyed. This mass delusion is so entrenched now that listeners from all over the world, and from just about every demographic, now accept the fact that certain music “overrepresented in the 1965-69 era” is now considered so great we want to listen to it often. The cure, Jackson states, can be found “by examining the who chooses and why, the “dominant canon of the dominant” can be opened up as listeners reflect on their exclusions and “find their own ways off the beaten track.”  

Rick Moran’s piece counters that young people are falling under this spell too, as “[Media Research Center Sales data] states that “old songs” currently represent an astonishing 70% of the U.S. market.” Listening to music is often a solitary activity. Suggesting that those listed above do not influence our choices is foolish, but to suggest that it constantly influences what we stream in our cars, at our computers, and all the other times when we’re alone appears equally foolish. One might think that young people, who traditionally abhor everything their elders prefer, might be a demographic that Jackson could count on to put an end to these institutional decrees, but the data suggests they went and had their minds melded.  

Guiteau Gets Garfield


“I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts … Arthur is President now,” an assassin named Charles Julius Guiteau said after shooting the 20th President of the United States, James Abram Garfield in the back at the Baltimore and Potomac Railway station in Washington D.C., on July 2, 1881. (New York Herald, July 3, 1881).  

Charles Guiteau believed he played an instrumental role in the presidential election of James Garfield, and he thought the administration owed him a job. He believed he was a Stalwart, a hard working, supporter of the cause, and when the administration decided not to reward him for his efforts, he decided to shoot the president. He dressed the motive up later, saying that he was on a mission from God to save the party and the country, but the motive that drove him to borrow money for a gun, practice target shooting, and stalk the president arose because the president wouldn’t give him a job.  

There are no records of a meeting between Garfield and Guiteau, so there were no personal rejections, but Garfield’s Secretary of State told Guiteau to “Never bother me again about the Paris consulship so long as you live.” There are also no records of a direct relationship between Guiteau’s annoying persistence and the Garfield administration’s decision to end the practice of offering positions to Stalwarts, also known as the patronage or spoils system. Ending this practice, encouraged Guiteau to believe he should assassinate a president.  

Why did Charles Guiteau do it? What drove this man to want to commit such a violent? What was his motive? Inquiring rubberneckers of history want to know. We could say people just have a natural curiosity, but that would suggest that once we have our answer, we all walk away. We’re obsessed with serial killers, mass murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths, and assassins. We want to know what drives them to violence. 

Is our drive to find out what drove them all about intrigue, or do we have a motive behind wanting to know the motive? Who cares why a man kills people? Who cares why a man tries to assassinate a world leader? Some suggest that if we know the motive, we might be able to prevent future incidents of a similar nature. To do that, we need to understand the criminal mind. To do what? What if the violent perpetrator has no motive? What if he lies? What if he realizes that assassinating a president, because that president wouldn’t give him a job is a pretty stupid reason to kill a man? What if he invents a motive to assign some level of importance to what he did? What if the truth is that he always wanted to commit a random act of violence?  

Do we appreciate it when a killer provides a specific motive for his actions? Does knowing a motive provide us some level of comfort? Some accept the fact that someone shot a bunch of people, because a dog told him to do it. It’s better to believe that than it is to think that they did it because they just wanted to commit a random act of violence.   

In service to his Stalwart duties, Guiteau gave poorly attended speeches on candidate Garfield’s behalf. The audience to these speeches suggest Guiteau thought President Ulysses S. Grant was going to seek a third term. They thought he simply crossed out the name Grant and replaced it with Garfield. They said this because Guiteau accidently attributed Grant’s accomplishments to Garfield. The mentally unstable Guiteau still believed he proved instrumental in Garfield’s victory, and he wrote numerous letters to Garfield, and he visited the White House and the State Department numerous times, to argue that they should reward him for his efforts with a position in Garfield’s administration. When these efforts failed, the narcissist Guiteau decided he needed to assassinate the president to save his party and his land. 

“[S]aved my party and my land. Glory hallelujah!” Guiteau wrote in a poem he recited, as his last words before execution. “But they have murdered me for it, and that is the reason I am going to the Lordy.”  

Before the assassination attempt [Guiteau] wrote an “Address to the American People,” making the case for Garfield’s assassination. In his address, Guiteau accused Garfield of “the basest ingratitude to the Stalwarts” and said the president was on a course to “wreck the once grand old Republican party.” Assassination, Guiteau wrote, was “not murder; it is a political necessity.” He concluded, “I leave my justification to God and the American people.”  

Guiteau wrote a second justification for his planned assassination or, as he called it, “the President’s tragic death.” Guiteau, claiming himself to be “a Stalwart of the Stalwarts,” wrote that “the President … will be happier in Paradise than here.” He ended his note with the words, “I am going to jail.” 

Guiteau arrived at the station about 8:30. He felt ready for the job, having practiced his marksmanship on a riverbank on the way to his destination. Garfield entered the nearly empty station at 8:25 with Secretary Blaine and a bag-carrying servant. They walked several steps into the carpeted “ladies’ waiting room” when Guiteau fired his first shot. It grazed Garfield’s arm. Guiteau moved two steps and fired a second shot. The bullet entered Garfield’s back just above the waist. The president fell as the back of his gray summer suit filled with blood. 

After shooting the president, Guiteau tried to calm the onlookers, “It’s all right, it’s all right,” he said before the police officer on duty arrested him. 

“I did not kill the President,” Guiteau said during his trial. “The doctors did that. I merely shot him.” Though a laughable defense in a criminal proceeding, historians suggest that when used as a defense against execution in a murder in the first-degree case, it might merit some consideration. Esteemed historians, such as Candace Millard, author of the excellent Destiny of the Republic, suggests that if President James A. Garfield’s doctors did nothing, Garfield might have recovered. Her assumption is based on the idea that the doctors who attempted to locate Guiteau’s bullet were untrained in Listerian antiseptic methods that would be in widespread use a decade later. Historian, and Garfield biographer, Allan Peskin disagrees. He stated, “That medical malpractice did not contribute to Garfield’s death; the inevitable infection and blood poisoning that would ensue from a deep bullet wound resulted in damage to multiple organs and spinal bone fragmentation.” An autopsy identified the cause of death as a rupturing of an aneurysm in the splenic artery. 

In the hours after his arrest, Guiteau acted strangely. On the way to city jail with a police detective, Guiteau asked the officer if the detective was a Stalwart. When the detective replied that he was, Guiteau promised to make him chief of police. In jail, he balked at removing his shoes, complaining that if he walked barefoot over the jail’s stone floors “I’ll catch my death of cold.” When a photographer snapped his photo, he demanded a royalty payment of $25.  

Prosecutor John K. Porter demanded to know whether Guiteau was familiar with the Biblical commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Guiteau responded that in this case “the divine authority overcame the written law.” He insisted, “I am a man of destiny as much as the Savior, or Paul, or Martin Luther.” 

Guiteau approached his hanging with a sense of opportunity, but he eventually abandoned his plan to appear for the event dressed only in underwear (to remind spectators of Christ’s execution) after being persuaded that the immodest garb might be seen as further evidence of his insanity. 

The problem for Guiteau, as it applied to a first-degree murder case, was that he displayed the characteristics of malice and forethought. He stalked President Garfield, he practiced shooting the gun he purchased at a riverbank, and he abandoned a previous attempt to assassinate the president, because the president was with his wife at the time, and Guiteau didn’t want to upset the wife.  

The trial of Charles Julius Guiteau was what some call “the most celebrated insanity trial of the century” with many alienists (psychiatrists) debating whether Guiteau was sane. Many historians, and almost all neurologists, now agree that, by today’s standards, Guiteau was clinically insane. After Guiteau’s execution, public opinion on the issue of insanity shifted.  

Although modern and future readers, who sit in the proverbial jury room, might sympathize with some of the antiquated measures used to determine sanity in 1881, but they might also calculate some of Charles Guiteau’s premeditated calculations into the equation. Months prior to the 100-year anniversary of Guiteau’s assassination attempt (March 30, 1981), John Hinkley provided a case similar to Guiteau’s, as Hinkley premeditated his assassination attempt (on President Ronald Reagan), and he did not kill the president either (reagan would live 23 more years, but Garfield died 8 weeks after Guiteau’s attempt). We might consider a stereotypical clinically insane individual to act on impulse, but the more modern jury of his peers, declared Hinkley clinically insane, and he spent 35 years in a psychiatric institution before being released. Hinkley now uploads love songs on YouTube. 

Further Reading