The paper is in two parts: first, a report by the State Hospital physician who observed the post-analytic condition; and second, a critical comment by the analyst. The case was one of alcoholism in a superior man with more than average business ability. He undertook analysis because of feelings of tension, general discomfort in contact with people, and vague sexual fears, especially about homosexuality. He was analysed for two and a half years. At the end of that time he murdered his mistress in a brutal fashion while drunk. While in prison he developed manic-depressive psychosis with homosexual fears. He was twice removed to a State Hospital where he rapidly improved. The author believes that this case was not suitable for analysis from the beginning, that he was too narcissistic and that analysis may have aggravated the tension which led to homicide. The analyst disagrees with the author, feels that the symptoms were not aggravated by analysis, that there was marked improvement for a