In the course of his research, the author found some individuals who believe that Okawa deliberately comported himself as he did at the trial to call attention to the basic unfairness of the proceedings. They suggested that he was excluded from the trial because his testimony would have undermined the prosecution. There is some evidence to support the latter notion. The author’s emotional ties to the psychiatrist, his own grandfather, led him to wonder whether Jaffe’s relationship with a relative who suffered from a severe and persistent mental disorder, coupled with his self-diagnosed depersonalization during wartime service, may have contributed to his recommending treatment over continued prosecution. Do the facts he presents support either hypothesis? It seems not. Neurosyphilis was well understood at the time, and the description of Okawa’s presentation and the course of the illness conform to what we know about this disorder. The issue of an insanity defense did not arise at the time or ever. Jaffe did not communicate a judgment as to the legal issues or disposition. He made a diagnosis, and he called attention to available treatment that might in due course optimize Okawa’s capacity to participate intelligently in a trial. The judge used this information, independently corroborated by another psychiatrist, to order treatment, but he continued the legal case. Only later were the charges dismissed on overarching political grounds.