Psychiatric Evaluation of Brother Lorne Lei Wray 2007
CENTRAL FORENSIC CONSULTANTS
Name: Lorne Wray
Lorne Wray is an African American male, who was evaluated at the request of Mr. John Ferrara, of the office of the Public Defender, who was representing him at that time. He is now represented by Ms. Lisa Preddy, Circuit Defender. The evaluation was requested in order to provide the committing court with information to assist in its consideration of Mr. Wray's petition for Unconditional Release from the Missouri Department of Mental Health. He was interviewed at the office of the Public Defender in
Sources of Information:
Information for this evaluation was drawn from multiple sources, including:
1. A review of the written information furnished for my inspection by Mr. Ferrara, including police reports and selected legal documents related to Mr. Wray's committing offense and records from his inpatient stay in the Department of Mental Health;
2. A clinical interview, mental status examination, and psychological testing of the petitioner, conducted at the office of the Public Defender
3. A telephone interview of the petitioner's sibling on
4. A telephone interview of Dick Slusarski, Mr. Ray's forensic case monitor, on
5. Conversation with Mr. Ferrara, concerning his interactions with the petitioner.
Prior to my interview of the defendant, he was advised as to its nature, purpose, and inherent limits on confidentiality. He was told that evaluation was being conducted at the request of Mr. Ferrara, who was identified as my client, for purposes of the evaluation. He was told that I would be preparing a formal report of my findings for submission to the court and could be subpoenaed to testify, and thus the usual psychologist/client privilege would not apply in the case of the current evaluation. My status as a mandated reporter was also explained. Following a spoken explanation, Mr. Wray reviewed a written formal consent document. He then signed it, indicating his willingness to participate in the evaluation.
Mr. Wray is currently on conditional release status from the Department of Mental Health. He was originally committed to that department as not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, on a charge of Aggravated Stalking, on
Pertinent Background Information:
Detailed information on the petitioner’s biopsychosocial history is available to the court in multiple Department of Mental Health records and will not be repeated here. However, a brief review is appropriate.
According to furnished records, Mr. Ray was born in Slater,
He has reported maintaining steady employment, since he began summer employment during high school. He has worked in a variety of positions, including dishwasher, hotel cook, assistant restaurant manager, truck driver, and driver for an automobile storage company. He also reported having been self-employed in the music business and he operated his own delivery service while on partial conditional release.
Mr. Wray has never served in the military. He reported that he has never been married, and he has fathered no children. He identified himself as heterosexual and reported that he has dated several women, although he is not currently involved in a relationship.
Mr. Wray reported minimal contact with legal authorities prior to the events leading to his current commitment to the Department of Mental Health. According to a 1998 pretrial evaluation report his only known arrest, prior to 1998, was at age 12 when he and friends stole fruit from a fruit stand. He was reportedly taken to detention, but released to his mother without formal charges. He has no prior adult criminal history.
Mr. Wray also denied any history of mental illness or mental health care, prior to his current commitment to the Department of Mental Health. Mr. Wray denied any history of the use of alcohol or other substances, a report supported by his siblings and available records. Records indicate that his mother has been diagnosed with, and treated for, schizophrenia. There is no other known history of major mental illness within his family.
Since leaving the hospital, Mr. Ray has been residing with his sibling. It was reported that they get along well and there have been no problems as a result of him living in the home. No indication of any problems he has had in the community.
Treatment Course within the Department of Mental Health:
Available information on Mr. Ray's course of treatment is too great in volume to be repeated here. It is also available to the court in other documents. Therefore, again, only a summary will be provided.
Mr. Wray's first contact with the Department of Mental Health was in March of 1998. He was seen by Dr. John Rabun for a pretrial evaluation on March 9. Criminal charges at that time alleged that Mr. Wray had been stalking and harassing the alleged victim through much of 1997. At that time it was alleged that Mr. Wray, among other things, ordered multiple magazines in the name of the alleged victim and his family, reported him to the Division of Family Services for child abuse, made numerous phone calls and sent multiple e-mail messages, threatened to kidnap his children and kill his family, had his address published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and had his utilities cut off. Dr. Rabun diagnosed Mr. Wray as suffering from Delusional Disorder and apparently believed that he held, but was not reporting, homicidal ideation toward the alleged victim. As a result, Mr. Wray was involuntarily admitted to the
According to furnished records, Mr. Wray remained in inpatient status at
According to a medical and psychiatric assessment completed following his return to St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center, his transfer to Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center followed his having named most of the physicians at the former facility in lawsuits and was intended to determine whether those suits were based on credible grievances or were the result of "persistent delusional thinking."
According to available information, while at
Within a few weeks of his return to that facility, he again began to refuse to complete chores in the cottage and was seen as trying to convince other clients to not participate in treatment, and as scaring them when talking about the side effects of medication. He filed numerous grievances against staff members and assisted other clients in filing for conditional releases, reportedly prematurely. He reportedly professed a belief that perhaps other clients should not be on medication, behavior seen as contributing to some of them having relapses. He was apparently moved from a cottage to a more restrictive ward environment because of his behavior. According to his discharge summary, he was then helped to realize that his behavior was delaying his own release, and he agreed to work through the treatment program. He was returned to a cottage setting in January 2004. Following his transfer, he reportedly stopped interfering with other patients treatments and ceased filing grievances. He began participating in social and leisure activities, doing cottage chores, and following all rules and regulations. He continued to not accept that he suffered from a mental illness, and he denied that he had ever threatened his victim. However, he did admit that he had harassed him, expressing the opinion that he was justified in doing so, because of the money he was owed. In late 2004, he filed for conditional release, and Dr. Mallya, his treating physician, indicated he would support the release.
Mr. Wray, apparently decided to file for unconditional release and requested an independent examination. Such examination was subsequently ordered by the Honorable Cynthia Ecklekamp, judge of the Franklin County Circuit Court. He was evaluated by Dr. Steven Courtois, a forensic examiner at
He was granted a two step conditional release on
Clinical interview and mental status examination:
Mr. Wray was interviewed by the undersigned clinician at the office of Mr. Ferrara in
His intellect, assessed informally through vocabulary, syntax, grammar, and use of language, appeared to be at least average. Cognitive functioning was well preserved. During the course of my mental status examination, I administered a G. H. Kent Intelligence Test and the Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination, and his performance was entirely within normal limits.
In discussing the circumstances leading to his commitment to the Department of Mental Health, Mr. Wray continued to express the belief that he was wronged by the victim and that his actions were justifiable. Consistent with prior accounts, he reported that he given the victim $6,000, which to promote an album. He contended that the victim failed to promote the album adequately and use the money inappropriately. He reportedly refused to reimburse Mr. Wray. Mr. Wray admitted engaging in a number of behaviors that would constitute harassment, but he denied having made the threats alleged. Interestingly, in my conversation with his siblings, an account of the relationship and interaction between brother and the victim was quite similar to Mr. Wray's. They reported that they'd known the victim for several years and described themselves as being "in the middle" of the events that transpired, although indicated that no one had had ever sought their account of what happened.
Mr. Wray furnished an account of his behaviors within the Department of Mental Health that paralleled that available in furnished records. He appears to continue to believe that his actions were justified, seeing the only avenues available to him, given his perception of the powerlessness of a committed mental patient, as lying within the legal system.
During our discussion, Mr. Wray was able to argue his position logically and articulately. While his speech was animated at times, he did not become angry, but remained polite and appropriate.
In discussing his history and his plans for the future, Mr. Wray gave no evidence of pervasive paranoia, grandiosity or unrealistic self perception. While he clearly maintains the belief that he has been treated unfairly by the Department of Mental Health, he gave no indication of similar beliefs extending to other entities. He expressed the opinion he is routinely treated fairly, he denied any belief that anyone seems to have it in for him, and he reported that he is able to get along well with people in general. He denied ever having had problems with anyone else, like those he had with the victim. Information from his siblings supported his report.
Mr. Wray has historically carried an Axis I diagnosis of Delusional Disorder. Information in Department of Mental Health records is strongly supportive of that diagnosis having been appropriate in the past. However, those records have referred to that condition on a historical basis since at least June 2005. They do not reflect a current diagnosis of Delusional Disorder and I would concur. Results of the current evaluation give no indication of any active Axis I condition.
While in the Department of Mental Health, Mr. Wray was also diagnosed with a Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, with Paranoid and Narcissistic Features. In my clinical opinion, that diagnosis is less clear. Although aspects of Mr. Wray's behavior, while in the custody of the Department of Mental Health, are clearly suggestive of both paranoia and narcissism, to qualify as personality disorder the pattern of behavior must be enduring, inflexible, and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations and must lead to clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas functioning. Available evidence does not reflect a history of such behavior or impairment outside the Department of Mental Health. Mr. Wray denies any such history and his siblings supports his denial. Although my contact with him was admittedly limited, there was no indication of a level of either paranoia or narcissism sufficient to cause functional impairment. His case manager denied the existence of any such symptoms over the course of their interaction. Mr. Wray presents as intelligent, articulate, confident and outspoken. He is idealistic, opinionated, and polemic. He admits that he enjoys both good conversation and a good argument. And, he is angry. However, those qualities do not, in and of themselves, constitute a personality disorder. Therefore, I will defer diagnoses on Axis II. However, because my contact with Mr. Wray is much more limited than that of the clinicians of the Department of Mental Health, I will acknowledge the need to rule out a personality disorder.
Axis I: No Diagnosis.
Axis II: 799.9 Diagnosis Deferred;
Rule Out Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, with
Paranoid and Narcissistic Features.
Considerations within Chapter 552 .040.7:
1. It is the opinion of this clinician, to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that the committed person presently does not have a mental disease or defect;
2. Mr. Wray was committed on a felony charge of aggravated stalking, as described earlier in this report;
3. Mr. Wray's behavior while confined has been described in detail in prior sections of this report;
4. The last reported unlawful or dangerous act on the part of the defendant was a verbal threat of violence on
5. As detailed previously, Mr. Wray has been on conditional release since
6. The determination that Mr. Wray is not dangerous to himself or others is not dependent on his taking drugs, medicine or narcotics. No medications have been prescribed since his return to
Michael P. Stacy, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist PY01307