Dr. Harding’s report to Judge Flowers

Dr. Harding’s report to Judge Flowers was the pivotal written assessment connecting Billy Milligan’s psychiatric history to two distinct legal questions: whether he could assist in his defense at the time of the hearing, and whether mental illness had affected his responsibility when the charged conduct occurred. Dr. George Harding concluded that Milligan was competent to stand trial but had not been responsible for his conduct in October 1977. The report helped secure the competency ruling, became public through a newspaper leak, and placed a contested diagnosis at the center of the case.

Preparation and Scope

On September 12, 1978, after consulting other professionals and conferring with his staff, Dr. Harding wrote the nine-page report for Judge Jay Flowers. It set out Milligan’s medical, social, and psychiatric history rather than relying on a brief examination. The prosecutors later emphasized that the assessment followed more than seven months of hospital study and incorporated consultation with many psychologists and psychiatrists. They regarded its breadth and preparation as distinguishing it from the short examinations they might ordinarily challenge in court.

The report also followed an earlier legal effort to assess Milligan’s ability to participate in his defense. The Public Defender’s Office had funded a psychological evaluation, and on January 8 and 13, 1978, clinical psychologist Dr. Willis C. Driscoll administered a battery of tests. Driscoll recorded an IQ score of 68, while noting that depression had lowered the result, and diagnosed acute schizophrenia. On January 19, Judy Stevenson and Gary Schweickart presented his report to Judge Flowers as evidence that Milligan could not assist in his defense. The court then arranged an examination by the forensic psychiatry unit of Southwest Community Mental Health Center. After disagreement over whether statements made during that examination could be used against Milligan, the parties agreed that prosecutors could question him about incriminating statements only if he testified. This earlier evaluation and the later hospital report thus belonged to successive stages of the competency dispute, not to a single interchangeable finding.

History and Clinical Interpretation

Dr. Harding’s account linked Milligan’s reported childhood experiences and family circumstances to his later psychological difficulties. The report described physical abuse affecting the household and abuse of Milligan by his stepfather, Chalmer Milligan, when he was eight or nine. It also recorded Milligan’s fear that Chalmer might kill him and conceal what had happened. Dr. Harding considered the history of Milligan’s father’s suicide and the absence of a father’s involvement, as well as Milligan’s identification with his mother. In his formulation, witnessing her terror when she was beaten contributed to separation anxiety, while the reported abuse and humiliation were associated with recurrent dissociation.

That account gave the report significance beyond a label. It presented Milligan’s symptoms within a developmental and family history, and treated the reported dissociative experiences as relevant to understanding his functioning. Dr. Harding also recognized that the diagnosis raised questions extending beyond this patient. He worried that accepting multiple personality as a basis for an insanity finding could establish a legal precedent in Ohio and potentially elsewhere, and could affect the standing of the diagnosis, other patients, psychiatric practice, and expert testimony. He nevertheless concluded that the case required further understanding and that his report should be useful in addressing similar problems.

Legal Conclusions and Competency Ruling

The report’s central distinction was between present competency and responsibility at the time of the offenses. Dr. Harding concluded that Milligan had achieved fusion of his multiple personalities and was competent to stand trial. Separately, he concluded that Milligan was mentally ill and had not been responsible for his criminal conduct during the last half of October 1977. The two conclusions addressed different periods and legal questions: the first concerned Milligan’s capacity to proceed in court, while the second concerned his condition when the conduct occurred.

On October 6, 1978, after a brief competency hearing, Judge Flowers ruled on the basis of the Harding report that Milligan could stand trial and set December 4 as the trial date. The report therefore informed a ruling about present participation without itself deciding the eventual question of guilt or the court’s final disposition of the insanity defense. The distinction remained important as the case moved forward: psychiatric conclusions were evidence for the court, while the legal determination belonged to the judge.

Leak, Publicity, and Afterlife

The report had initially circulated within a restricted circle of treating professionals, prosecutors, and the judge. The public defenders wanted the diagnosis kept confidential, concerned that publicity could make treatment more difficult and turn the case into a media event. On October 4, Harry Franken of the Citizen-Journal told Gary Schweickart and Judy Stevenson that he had obtained a copy from an unnamed source and intended to publish the story. Judge Flowers decided the report should also be released to the Columbus Dispatch, and the defense agreed to comment once the document had already been leaked.

Photographers were permitted to show several of Milligan’s paintings alongside the coverage, including a portrait of Adalana. The report consequently moved from a clinical and legal document into public circulation, where its account of Milligan’s diagnosis could no longer be kept separate from news coverage of the case. The stories upset Milligan, who feared what other prisoners might do if he were sent back to Lebanon after the disclosure of his lesbian personality. The document’s public life thus had consequences beyond the courtroom: it exposed clinical information, intensified Milligan’s anxiety about imprisonment, and made confidentiality itself part of the case.

The report’s authority was later reinforced by its role in the competency decision, but it did not end the legal process. At trial, the judge relied on stipulated medical evidence in addressing the insanity defense, dismissed the first rape count for lack of corroborating evidence and a similar modus operandi, and found Milligan not guilty by reason of insanity on counts two through ten. The report’s lasting importance lies in how it made a detailed psychiatric history legible to the court while exposing the limits and consequences of that translation: a clinical account could inform legal decisions, yet could not substitute for them or remain private once it became news.