News @ ID Brian Nichols Defense

Discussion in 'News @ ID' started by OGofCriminalLaw, Mar 13, 2005.

  1. OG for the defense your honors.
    Something doesn't add up with Brian Nichols and the ATlanta courtroom murders.
    #1. Why was a 51-year-old grandmother guarding an allegedly virile, dangerous 6-foot-1, 210-pound, former football player, martial artist, rapist by herself? (doesn't add up)

    #2. Why would Brian Nichols jeopardize his escape by going completely across the bridge into the other building to shoot Judge Barnes, risking capture? (doesn't add up).

    #3. Why didn't the police/sheriffs check the video surveillance cameras to see what cars came and went, thereby noticing if the HOnda, had in fact, left the garage? The same cameras showed Nichols leaving via stairwell. Why not the car leaving the garage? All of this contributed to the waste of 13 hours looking for a car that never left the garage.(Doesn't add up)

    #4. Why is it that doctors who should know a gun wound from a blunt object wound say that the grandmother deputy had been shot in head, then later reveal it was indeed just a wound from being struck? (doesn't add up).

    #5. Why did Ned Cronan say, when speaking of the death of the fed agent Wilhelm, that he didn't think they killed him there. Who is THEY? And why would he say that word when it's been in the news 24 hours prior that allegedly ONE man has been responsible for the killings? (doesn't add up).

    #6. If Brian Nichols is/was such as brutal monster ready to kill on sight, why did he not torture and kill the last woman he took hostage, instead simply letting her go knowing she would call the police? (Dosn't add up)

    I submit that no sane man would do this, ergo, Brian Nichols is/was insane at the time these incidents took place. He should not go to prison but to a mental ward.

    The defense rests
  2. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    No grounds for pursuing an insanity defense - Nichols does not fall within the Naghton Rule.

    The Naghten Rule provides that a person must be "incapable of appreciating his surroundings" due to mental deficiency or be unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Under this standard Nichols has more than established he was able to appreciate the difference between right and wrong, hunting and executing the judge who was overseeing his case. He also showed premeditation in bringing shanks to the court 2 days earlier and planning his escape route out of the downtown area by moving the carjacked car down a level, changing clothes and then exiting to the metro.

    Nichols is a cold, methodical killer who does not kill for the sake of killing, but rather in an attempt to save his own bacon and as punishment for perceived wrongs. He's the kind of person who attacks only when cornered and when he feels there is no other way out of a situation - he is a selfish and vicious murderer.

    It is just a shame that the court and police officials played so well into this man's hands. The judge had specifically asked for protection and extra security with regard to this man, yet they dropped the ball. The failure to bring the man into court in shackles, putting only an old woman to guard this man, the failure to seal off the entire parking garage, etc. However, we must not forget that no one made Nichols kill these people, he did that solely on his own and with utter disregard.

  3. AhhH. The M'Naghten Rule (that old thing?). Albeit, it's a good point except for one little piece you left out about it that goes in the definition which is the phrasse "at the time of the offense."

    Essentially, the meat of McNaughton says this: Text the defendant should be judged insane if he/she could not distinguish between right and wrong Text at the time the criminal act was committed.

    And that's where the crux is my friend. At the time of the offense, Nichols certainly was not in a mental state to "appreciate" the nature and quality of his acts. Furthermore the Moral Penal Code has to be looked as part of insanity pleading which states that the person is not responsible for criminal conduct when, as a result of mental illness or defect, he/she has reduced capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

    Nichols meets this standard. Never said he's not guilty. Stevie Wonder can see that. This goes to mental state.

  4. blue

    blue Premium Member

    1.) mr. nichols was coherant enough to recognize oppurtunity when it presented its self

    2.) mr. nichols was coherant enough to kill not once but three times

    3.) mr. nichols was coherant enough to tie his own shoes ( and slip a shive in them, for what purpose?)

    4.) apparently the atlanta law enforcement offices appear to fall under the naughton rule- but that is no defense he should pursue
  5. Greetings Blue,
    1. Mr. Nichols had opportunity but "at the moment" of engagement he wasn't able to "appreciate." I have opportunity everyday to kill somebody, but i don't because im not insane (at least not at that moment...heh, heh).

    2. "Mr. Nichols was coherent enough to kill not once but three times." (who doesn't know that by now? we already know he's guilty of that statement is mostly Ad hoc and emotional my friend. Furthermore, COHERENCY, is something else to ponder altogether).

    3. Mr. Nichols was coherent enough to tie his own shoes.
    and with a shive to boot. (this goes to "intent"...and intent is not "doing" and if that's all you've got, you have no real case).

    4. Atlanta, Georgia falls under the McNaughton Rule as does most of the country. Georgia has not executed anybody since 1983, however...

    5. Im not saying exclusively pursue the insanity defense. However, it's no secret that people are already crying for his demise via Georgia's lethal injection. I dont think this man should die. Killing him in return is NOT the answer. Im not exclusively for the Insanity Defense, I present it only as an option to killing Mr. Nichols.

    peace and respect,

  6. blue

    blue Premium Member

    thank u for the greetings og- My meaning as far as oppurtunity is such, tru enough sane ppl are presented with the oppurtunity to kill every day, but dont precisely because they are sane. Murderers are presented the oppurtunity and appreciablly take advantage of the oppurtunity, showing a sense of reasoning. the insane simply kill when the mood strikes irregardless. i have no questians as to mr nichols sanity- at that moment or any other- and have no desire to attempt to offer him a rationality for his actions.

    as for the shive- intent shows an ability to reason, concider, and plan a course of action. wheather that action is carried out using a knife, gun or club he planned a course of action to escape responsibility for his previous action. There by showing the ability to understand he had committed an act that he was going to be punished for. something that the insane do not understand.

    and the death penalty is not a wanton act of murder such as mr nichols has commited but an approved socialy lawful applied penalty imposed on individuals who have committed censureable acts desearving. that being said i can appreciate how the application of that penalty upsets citizans with a more delicate sense to crime and punishment.( i myself am opposed to the impossed death sentance on the unborn- but as yet that is still the law of the land so says the majority and the supreme court)
  7. Icewolf

    Icewolf Premium Member

    Sorry for butting in here, but would you mind supplying the members here with three things.

    1. A link to this story so we have background information
    2. Some links to the law terms you are using here
    3. Some links to the psychological terms which you are using to back up your argument,

    Thx in advance,

    - Ice -

    [Edited on 14-3-2005 by Icewolf]
  8. blue

    blue Premium Member

    Hummm- well thats gonna make things so much harder
  9. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    "at the time of the offense" - I would just love to see a defense attorney sucessfully argue that Nichols insanity was limited to a 16 hour period on the day in question. Ain't gonna fly.

    Not only did Nichols appreciate the "nature and quality" of his acts, but they showed deliberation and planning. And now that we have the comments of his hostage out there in the media - well, I think Nichols should be begging for plea bargain that spares his life. He actually apologized to her and told her that would kill her if they were discovered and that he would take as many lives as he could before taking his own. Sounds like he had an excellent grasp of reality.

    MPC is a dinosaur which has long outlived its usefullness and the courts have consistently moved away from its application. The "Twinkie" defense immediately springs to mind as an example of BS pseudopsychology that has long since been abandoned.

    Plead out Nichols or your bacons cooked.


    My apologies icewolf - some links of interest:
    Legal Insanity
    The Twinkie Defense
  10. "at the time of the offense" - I would just love to see a defense attorney sucessfully argue that Nichols insanity was limited to a 16 hour period on the day in question. Ain't gonna fly."

    Response: Sure it can fly. 16-hour span qualifies for McNaugton all day long. McNaugthon's spawn is the Irresistible Impulse Rule ("knowing it's wrong but not being able to help yourself"). He could also apply Delusional Comparison.

    Let's remember, all i want to do as the defense is keep the needle out of his arm. We already know he's GUILTY. An Insanity Defense has a great chance of flying. It worked for John Lee Malvo and he was accused of killing 10 people.
    The strategy here is to salvage a life w/o parole instead of lethal injection at the PENALTY PHASE (exactly as worked for the Malvo precedent)--and as it PROVES can certainly fly.
    The jury will march in, go through the motions and CONVICT. We all know that. We just have to pretend to give Nichols his 6th. Very laughable. So let's cut to the chase to the penaly phase. Which is where my argument is. I concede the Guilt Phase, raising the ID as simply a means to the PP whereby i can get that LWOP.

    By raising a ID as his lawyer, im going to him as the NICE GUY he was until SOMETHING SNAPPED and he went INSANE. Im going to pull out the psychiatrists to support. And all the time im not worried that he's guilty, only that at the PP he doesn't get the needle. It's a very viable strategy ala Malvo. So yes i'll take a plea, alright--and Insanity Plea. Thanks.

    As far as the Twinkie, well, if it works--go with what you got. I've seen people get off with worse excuses. Anyway, law isn't really so much about being fair as it is about OUT THINKING your opponent. That's the mistake most people make going into court, assuming it's ALL about FAIRNESS.

    See ya in court! By the way, i like PANCAKES not bacon!

    Peace and respect

  11. blue

    blue Premium Member

    Well friend, get paid in advance
  12. blue, my friend, im just glad you guys are not on the jury. that's payment enough.:)
  13. blue

    blue Premium Member

    lol fair enough
  14. Blue, this is a straight question. Not trying to trick you or anything. Honestly, how can you be against Abortion but FOR the Death Penalty? Isn't death simply death?

    Just curious to hear your take on it.

    respect and peace
  15. blue

    blue Premium Member

    ok heres my take short and sweet- the death penalty is impossed on ppl who by thier own free will have decided to end the life of another living individual, generally a productive member of socity or at the vary least of the human race.and the majoritty of ppl recieveing the death penalty have commited more then one murder. An abortion is in essance a death penalty impossed upon a living indvidual who has committed absoulutely no harm to socity in any sense- mearly just happens to be an inconvienince in most cases. There are other ,and in my opinion better, forms of birth control avaliable. and when a socity begins to consume itself in this fashion, where does it end? We have seen all to often where it leads. I am sorry that a fetus needs a womans body to develop to a certian stage, but that has always been one thing that has risen man kind to the level of humanity it has achieved. I just fear where we'll go when that moral break is removed.
  16. Blue, interesting take and one im inclined to agree with emotionally speaking. To wit, the death penalty could be viewed as retroactive abortion (gulp!), albeit for a 45 year old fetus so to speak (that's the average age of a DR citizen).

    "the majoritty of ppl recieveing the death penalty have commited more then one murder."

    Actually, only a small number of deathrow citizens have committed multiple murders. Over 90% are on deathrow for one murder only (obviously, one too many).

    Still, in the main. I see your point--and wrestle with the same angst myself. Thanks for the response. It was well-said.

    Peace and respect,
  17. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    Actually for me the death penalty is losing its appeal. I don't like the way it's applied (or not applied in certain cases). There are entirely too many people who are being sentenced to death based solely on oral testimony without any physical evidence. The Innocence Project and some of their success stories has really been an eye-opener for me.

    In this day and age of DNA, not only should the crime be of a heinous nature it should also be supported by physical evidence. Both standards should be employed and both should be well defined before seeking death. While this may allow creeps like Scott Peterson to avoid death penalty consideration - IMO it is a necessary trade off considering how many cases that have been overturned or are under consideration.

    Just my thoughts,

    [Edited on 3-16-2005 by Bleys]
  18. blue

    blue Premium Member

    90% is it?
    And good thoughts they are as i find myself once again agreeing with you. I hope you guys arent under the impression that i'm a off with thier heads kinda person, but i do believe there are certian crimes and certian individuals that it more than applies to. And that the standards of proof should be extremely high when a persons life is at stake.
  19. As of yesterday Scott Peterson was sentenced to death.
  20. Blue, i agree with you friend. It's often a tough call morally, emotionally. Financially, however, it's cheaper to keep her (or him) than execute. It costs over $2mil per execution case (what with the cost of endless appeals and all); yet the average cost of clothing, feeeding and housing a prisoner is about $30,000/annum at 40 years in prison is still a $million dollars short of equaling a Death Row execution. It's hella expensive to kill somebody!

    Granted, for heinous crimes, you want to do something to the scoundrel who committed said offense. Im just not sure killing him/her in return is the answer. Sometimes im really divided on this issue, other times im def against it. And i have been for it in the past (to be honest about it). My evolution and just looking into it more convinced me to slow my roll on across the board DP agreement. Another 10 years, i may change yet again. For now, im con the DP.

    and so it goes. Thank you guys for weighing in.

    peacea and respect