Tuesday 30 June 2015
Got Milk?
For some reason, to me, if I have milk in my fridge I don't need to do grocery shopping. If I run out of milk I panic and have to go to the store.
Colorado Theater Trial - Day 40
40 days! That's 9 weeks, assuming 5 day weeks, so far. They told jurors to expect 4 months. The way I think it works is that once both sides have finished their presentations it goes to the jury for deliberation regarding the charges - i.e. is he guilty or not guilty due to insanity. But once they've ruled, both sides then get to provide information for sentencing purposes, including victim impact statements (I think). Then the same jury has to decide on sentencing - i.e. life in prison versus death penalty.
I guess the major aspect of the length of the trial will be how long it will take the jury to deliberate everything. I guess it could take them anywhere from a few minutes to weeks to decide. The judge keeps telling them that they have to keep an open mind throughout the whole and not come to any conclusions before the end of the presentations - but how is that humanly possible? Ironically this trial is all about sanity and human psychology, and how humans think, etc. Yet they assume that the 24 (I think it might be down to 20 now) jurors can actually NOT form an opinion about the whole trial before the last day! I would think, while they may try otherwise, that the jurors probably walk away everyday with some sort of opinion of what's going on, based on everything they've heard up until that point. But everyday their opinion is probably changed or swayed by whatever is presented.
If I were a juror, I'd be leaning towards the prosecution's side right now, based on all the evidence I've heard/seen. Although I have seen/heard things that they have not be in court for, and I have missed a number of days. But to date I haven't felt that the defense's evidence has been strong enough to show the defendant was actually insane (legally) at the time of the act.
This morning they've been in court for at least 30 minutes without the jury. They've been debating various other things including whether or not the defense can show a video of an interview that the prosecution had with the defendant while he was in the hospital in November 2012. It appears that the defense wants to show the video because it demonstrates the defendant's state of mind in November 2012, immediately after starting his anti-psychotic medication. However the prosecution has objected to showing the video because the interviewer is not a doctor/psychiatrist/psychologist, therefore the defendant's responses can't be analyzed properly in court, AND because the defendant's responses would be used "as the truth of the matter" which is not allowed because it's hearsay.
In the end, the objection was sustained by the judge, and the defense is not allowed to show the video UNLESS they're able to lay additional foundation that doesn't have any objections to it. The main reason it was sustained was because it contained too much hearsay, AND because the prosecution would not have the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant. The judge made a comment that if the defense wanted to put the defendant on the stand they'd be able to introduce the video - but the chances of that happening are about as good as me winning a billion dollar lottery today.
Why oh why do I find this so damn fascinating?
***********
Holy cow - you made your point! The defense has a nurse on the stand who worked in the jail in 2012. They called her to the stand to talk about the defendant around mid-November when he started acting crazy, as she witnessed this and made notes of it in his file.
Two things came of this, none of them good for the defense:
1. The nurse noted that on the day the defendant was taken to the hospital for a cat scan, she anticipated they'd have to lift him onto the stretcher, but instead he got up on his own and was able to get onto the stretcher with the help of the attendants. She was surprised by this based on how he had behaved up to this point.
2. The prosecution went through almost everyday that this nurse had been on shift in the jail between July 29th and mid-November. And every single one of those days her notes show the defendant acted 'normally' and nothing unusual happened.
While many psychiatrists have said they do not believe the defendant is faking, I think it is very possible that he reached a point, while in jail, where he realized his situation was quite bad and was smart enough to know that if he acted crazy it might help him. He's a super-smart guy - there's no way he wasn't thinking - at some point - how to get himself out of the worst possible outcome (i.e. death penalty).
Did you know that sometime around 2013 when the D.A. was up for re-election in the Colorado county where the trial is taking place, the current D.A. campaigned on NOT eliminating the death penalty because he wanted to try to get the death penalty for Holmes.
**********
I'm done listening to the trial for the day. They've gone on break and by the time they come back, it'll be time for me to head home. They seem to have a longer day than me, except they get much more frequent and longer breaks. Two 20 minute breaks plus a 90 minute lunch break. Nice.
I guess the major aspect of the length of the trial will be how long it will take the jury to deliberate everything. I guess it could take them anywhere from a few minutes to weeks to decide. The judge keeps telling them that they have to keep an open mind throughout the whole and not come to any conclusions before the end of the presentations - but how is that humanly possible? Ironically this trial is all about sanity and human psychology, and how humans think, etc. Yet they assume that the 24 (I think it might be down to 20 now) jurors can actually NOT form an opinion about the whole trial before the last day! I would think, while they may try otherwise, that the jurors probably walk away everyday with some sort of opinion of what's going on, based on everything they've heard up until that point. But everyday their opinion is probably changed or swayed by whatever is presented.
If I were a juror, I'd be leaning towards the prosecution's side right now, based on all the evidence I've heard/seen. Although I have seen/heard things that they have not be in court for, and I have missed a number of days. But to date I haven't felt that the defense's evidence has been strong enough to show the defendant was actually insane (legally) at the time of the act.
This morning they've been in court for at least 30 minutes without the jury. They've been debating various other things including whether or not the defense can show a video of an interview that the prosecution had with the defendant while he was in the hospital in November 2012. It appears that the defense wants to show the video because it demonstrates the defendant's state of mind in November 2012, immediately after starting his anti-psychotic medication. However the prosecution has objected to showing the video because the interviewer is not a doctor/psychiatrist/psychologist, therefore the defendant's responses can't be analyzed properly in court, AND because the defendant's responses would be used "as the truth of the matter" which is not allowed because it's hearsay.
In the end, the objection was sustained by the judge, and the defense is not allowed to show the video UNLESS they're able to lay additional foundation that doesn't have any objections to it. The main reason it was sustained was because it contained too much hearsay, AND because the prosecution would not have the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant. The judge made a comment that if the defense wanted to put the defendant on the stand they'd be able to introduce the video - but the chances of that happening are about as good as me winning a billion dollar lottery today.
Why oh why do I find this so damn fascinating?
***********
Holy cow - you made your point! The defense has a nurse on the stand who worked in the jail in 2012. They called her to the stand to talk about the defendant around mid-November when he started acting crazy, as she witnessed this and made notes of it in his file.
Two things came of this, none of them good for the defense:
1. The nurse noted that on the day the defendant was taken to the hospital for a cat scan, she anticipated they'd have to lift him onto the stretcher, but instead he got up on his own and was able to get onto the stretcher with the help of the attendants. She was surprised by this based on how he had behaved up to this point.
2. The prosecution went through almost everyday that this nurse had been on shift in the jail between July 29th and mid-November. And every single one of those days her notes show the defendant acted 'normally' and nothing unusual happened.
While many psychiatrists have said they do not believe the defendant is faking, I think it is very possible that he reached a point, while in jail, where he realized his situation was quite bad and was smart enough to know that if he acted crazy it might help him. He's a super-smart guy - there's no way he wasn't thinking - at some point - how to get himself out of the worst possible outcome (i.e. death penalty).
Did you know that sometime around 2013 when the D.A. was up for re-election in the Colorado county where the trial is taking place, the current D.A. campaigned on NOT eliminating the death penalty because he wanted to try to get the death penalty for Holmes.
**********
I'm done listening to the trial for the day. They've gone on break and by the time they come back, it'll be time for me to head home. They seem to have a longer day than me, except they get much more frequent and longer breaks. Two 20 minute breaks plus a 90 minute lunch break. Nice.
Monday 29 June 2015
Colorado Theatre Massacre Trial - Day 39
Day 39 ... I think the last day I watched in Victoria was Day 30 or so, so I'm quite a few days behind. I missed the end of the prosecution's presentation and the start of the defense's presentation - as it appears they're nearing the end of their presentation already. Although I do remember them saying earlier that they only intended to need 2 weeks or so for their side of the case.
This, however, doesn't take into account any follow-up testimony that might happen after both sides have finished their initial case. But assuming that might be a week or so, the jury could start deliberation in July.
I'm not sure if I'll go back to watch the days I missed - although Friday is July 4th and court won't be in session, so I might listen to previous days on Friday.
************
There's a psychiatrist on the stand who is a witness for the defense. This doctor saw the defendant in November 2012 after he (the defendant) suffered some sort of psychotic break while in the jail. He was transferred to the hospital to be treated, and this doctor was one of his treating psychiatrists while at the hospital.
At the end of the defense attorney's initial set of questions, the attorney asked the doctor if he (the doctor) had in mind any possible reasons why the defendant was in the mental state he was (i.e. in the hospital). The doctor was told he could not speculate in his answer. So he listed a number of possible reasons why the defendant could be in the mental state that he was - which included a traumatic experience.
Well, did that open a door or what! The prosecutor, in his cross-examination, started with this concept. The prosecutor asked the doctor to explain what he meant by a traumatic event, and the doctor explained it could be anything. The prosecutor asked if murdering 12 people and attempting to murder hundreds of other people could be considered a traumatic event, the doctor (in my opinion) stumbled quite badly. The doctor refused to answer that 'yes' opening fire in a theater full of people could be traumatic. He used a bad excuse of not knowing the defendant's state of mind at the time of the event to say he couldn't answer that question. But the point is that it isn't the state of mind AT the time of the event that's the issue - it's how his reaction after the event affected his mental state. Could being arrested for such an event, and being locked in jail, and knowing you might get the death penalty, be traumatic enough to cause a mental breakdown and for his mental condition to get worse.
The fact is that the defense is attempting to show how mentally ill the defendant was by providing evidence of his breakdown in November 2012, 4 months after the event. They're using this breakdown as proof that he was delusional and psychotic and legally insane. But the defense is implying that this was actually the defendant's state of mind for the event as well - and that he was always this sick. But this witness opened the door - as an expert witness - to say it is possible that a person could get significantly worse, mentally, after a traumatic event. And that the massacre and events in the jail were traumatic enough to make the defendant worse off. Which would then create reasonable doubt that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the murders!
The defense attorneys are calm, of course, and they didn't ask any follow-up questions about traumatic events. They're trying to down play what was said by not bringing anymore attention to it. But I guarantee they're sweating like mad! And probably scribbling notes to each other like crazy.
This, however, doesn't take into account any follow-up testimony that might happen after both sides have finished their initial case. But assuming that might be a week or so, the jury could start deliberation in July.
I'm not sure if I'll go back to watch the days I missed - although Friday is July 4th and court won't be in session, so I might listen to previous days on Friday.
************
There's a psychiatrist on the stand who is a witness for the defense. This doctor saw the defendant in November 2012 after he (the defendant) suffered some sort of psychotic break while in the jail. He was transferred to the hospital to be treated, and this doctor was one of his treating psychiatrists while at the hospital.
At the end of the defense attorney's initial set of questions, the attorney asked the doctor if he (the doctor) had in mind any possible reasons why the defendant was in the mental state he was (i.e. in the hospital). The doctor was told he could not speculate in his answer. So he listed a number of possible reasons why the defendant could be in the mental state that he was - which included a traumatic experience.
Well, did that open a door or what! The prosecutor, in his cross-examination, started with this concept. The prosecutor asked the doctor to explain what he meant by a traumatic event, and the doctor explained it could be anything. The prosecutor asked if murdering 12 people and attempting to murder hundreds of other people could be considered a traumatic event, the doctor (in my opinion) stumbled quite badly. The doctor refused to answer that 'yes' opening fire in a theater full of people could be traumatic. He used a bad excuse of not knowing the defendant's state of mind at the time of the event to say he couldn't answer that question. But the point is that it isn't the state of mind AT the time of the event that's the issue - it's how his reaction after the event affected his mental state. Could being arrested for such an event, and being locked in jail, and knowing you might get the death penalty, be traumatic enough to cause a mental breakdown and for his mental condition to get worse.
The fact is that the defense is attempting to show how mentally ill the defendant was by providing evidence of his breakdown in November 2012, 4 months after the event. They're using this breakdown as proof that he was delusional and psychotic and legally insane. But the defense is implying that this was actually the defendant's state of mind for the event as well - and that he was always this sick. But this witness opened the door - as an expert witness - to say it is possible that a person could get significantly worse, mentally, after a traumatic event. And that the massacre and events in the jail were traumatic enough to make the defendant worse off. Which would then create reasonable doubt that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the murders!
The defense attorneys are calm, of course, and they didn't ask any follow-up questions about traumatic events. They're trying to down play what was said by not bringing anymore attention to it. But I guarantee they're sweating like mad! And probably scribbling notes to each other like crazy.
My Trip is Over ....
... and you can read all about it on my trip blog at http://dhsi2015.blogspot.ca/.
I got home on Saturday, June 27th. While I'm happy to be home with my fur babies, I'm not thrilled with the heat and humidity of Edmonton or the fact that I'm back at work! But I guess that's life.
I got home on Saturday, June 27th. While I'm happy to be home with my fur babies, I'm not thrilled with the heat and humidity of Edmonton or the fact that I'm back at work! But I guess that's life.
Friday 26 June 2015
Digital Humanities Summer Institute @ the University of Victoria
I spent the last 3 weeks (June 5th to 27th) on Vancouver Island (minus driving days). The first 2 weeks I was in Victoria attending DHSI. The 3rd week I went to Tofino for a vacation. A real vacation. I wrote a blog everyday during my trip and you can find it here:
My First Digital Humanities Summer Institute - DHSI 2015
Once I'm back home (June 27th) I'll start posting again in this blog.
My First Digital Humanities Summer Institute - DHSI 2015
Once I'm back home (June 27th) I'll start posting again in this blog.
Tuesday 2 June 2015
General Faculties Council
Each year the Graduate Students' Association (GSA) and the Students' Union (for undergrads) nominates students to sit on various boards and councils at the university. I applied to be a graduate student-at-large on the General Faculties Council (GFC), and my first meeting was yesterday, June 1st.
I heard someone at the meeting say there were around 150+ people on the council, but that normally only around 130 show up to meetings. In addition, yesterday's meeting was the 399th meeting of the GFC at the University of Alberta. The GFC executive was really excited because we get to use a new council chambers for the 400th meeting in September (as opposed to the lecture hall we were in yesterday). Apparently they completely renovated the council chambers in University Hall to make it more effective for large meetings. (Who knew.)
I think because it was the only summer meeting of the GFC, it was rather low key. The Chancellor made a presentation about the Senate, the President talked about the 'visiting committee,' we approved the appointment of new members, and they talked about the new council chambers. It was also our president's last GFC meeting, as the new president takes over in ... September (I think).
It was an overall interesting meeting, but I didn't hear anything new and exciting. The only new (but not so exciting) thing I heard is that Rachel Notley did call our president after she won the election, and after the new provincial cabinet was formed, the new minister also called. While both politicians promised that post-secondary education was a high priority to the government, neither actually committed to anything.
The part of the meeting that gave me the most to think about was the Chancellor's presentation about the Senate. I knew very little about the Senate before yesterday, and have a very interesting view (which I'll save for another post) now.
=^..^=
I heard someone at the meeting say there were around 150+ people on the council, but that normally only around 130 show up to meetings. In addition, yesterday's meeting was the 399th meeting of the GFC at the University of Alberta. The GFC executive was really excited because we get to use a new council chambers for the 400th meeting in September (as opposed to the lecture hall we were in yesterday). Apparently they completely renovated the council chambers in University Hall to make it more effective for large meetings. (Who knew.)
I think because it was the only summer meeting of the GFC, it was rather low key. The Chancellor made a presentation about the Senate, the President talked about the 'visiting committee,' we approved the appointment of new members, and they talked about the new council chambers. It was also our president's last GFC meeting, as the new president takes over in ... September (I think).
It was an overall interesting meeting, but I didn't hear anything new and exciting. The only new (but not so exciting) thing I heard is that Rachel Notley did call our president after she won the election, and after the new provincial cabinet was formed, the new minister also called. While both politicians promised that post-secondary education was a high priority to the government, neither actually committed to anything.
The part of the meeting that gave me the most to think about was the Chancellor's presentation about the Senate. I knew very little about the Senate before yesterday, and have a very interesting view (which I'll save for another post) now.
=^..^=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)