I started the day by watching/listening to the rest of yesterday’s testimony that I missed, though I skipped the parts where they simply played video recordings of previous testimony, as I saw those things when they were live.
Holmes’ mom was on the stand yesterday, but I only managed to get a short way into her testimony before the feed went live today. What I did hear so far was sad. His mom is way more emotional than his dad, but I guess that’s fairly normal. One thing I did hear was his mom talking about the psychiatrist in Colorado calling them to talk about Holmes. Apparently the psychiatrist was technically not allowed to do that, but she decided to reach out anyway. However, she limited what she said to his parents and did not tell them that he said he was thinking of killing people. His mom broke down and said over and over how she would have been on a plane immediately if the psychiatrist had told her Holmes was thinking of killing people. From the way she said this, I think she blames Dr. Fenton, the psychiatrist in question, for everything that happened.
On the one hand I can understand why Dr. Fenton was limited in what she could say, but I can’t help but think that she could have simply said “I think you need to come see him.” Maybe that would have implied heavily enough to his parents that they needed to do something. I can also understand the guilt his poor mom must feel. She probably feels that this is somewhat her fault for not noticing anything was wrong. And I’m sure she feels guilty for not trying to do anything, even though there was really no way for her to know what was going on.
Based on the testimony I’ve heard so far from both Holmes’ parents, it appears that they both noticed things not going well in the spring of 2012, but they never took that to assume he’d go so far as to kill a dozen people. But then again - who would!? This guy was pretty normal up until then … even if he was suffering from a mental illness. And while there is mental illness in his family, none of his family members ever became violent as part of their illnesses, so I wouldn’t think it would be a conclusion anyone would draw about him based solely on family medical history.
I personally don’t think his parents are to blame at all. To me, while they could have probably been a little more open with their kids in terms of talking about uncomfortable topics, they were trying to weigh interference with independence. I’m not a parent, but I’m pretty sure I can safely assume that all parents have a rough time with their kids when they’re transitioning from being a kid to an adult. You want to let them do their own thing, but you also want to continue to protect them. Based on his age and his circumstances I’m pretty sure his parents were simply trying not to get too much into his business because they probably felt he had to live his own life.
I also don’t think they’re to blame from a nurture perspective. He wasn’t raised in a household with an alcoholic parent who beat him or abused him. He was raised in a good family with lots of love and support. So his behaviour - to me - is more nature. Unfortunately something in his brain made him think this was an appropriate thing to do - and no amount of education or talking would have prevented him from thinking this way. I think the only thing that would have stopped him would have been hospitalization or supervision. Which raises another point. The defense and prosecution were arguing today about the jury instructions for phase 2. They disagreed over whether Dr. Fenton had the legal ability to commit Holmes to a mental institution for 72 hours without his consent. I think the prosecution thinks she had the ability and didn’t do it, while the defense thinks she didn’t have the ability and didn’t do it.
Unfortunately both sides seem to think that the whole event would not have happened had it not been for Holmes’ mental illness - and I do agree with that. But that creates a slippery slope. What’s the alternative? Lock someone up because they MIGHT do something? This isn’t Minority Report! And even if his mental illness was the sole reason why he did what he did, I don’t think anyone, including the doctors he say before the event, would have thought he’d do something so quickly. Where they should have intervened, in my opinion, is when he dropped out of school and said he wasn’t going to see them anymore. To me this should have been a trigger to get them moving on some kind of intervention. Hindsight is 20/20 though and I’m pretty sure those doctors feel absolutely terrible for what happened. I don’t even know if they’re still practicing or if they’ve stopped.
So far the mitigating factors that the defense has presented all have to do with Holmes as a kid and the fact that he was genetically disposed to having a mental illness. I’ve sort of already talked about the 2nd point - that it’s hard to do anything to someone if you think they might do something in the future. It’s not like some types of cancer where you can have pre-emptive surgery. But it’s actually the 1st point that bothers me the most. I really don’t care what he was like as a kid, or even a teenager. He didn’t commit this crime when he was a kid or a teenager. And lots of kids and teenagers grow up and develop different personalities and behaviours. Actually I’d say most do. I’m nothing like I was when I was in grade 5 - and I wouldn’t want to be judged NOW on what I was like in grade 5. I don’t think being a good kid means you’ll be a good adult, and vice versa. Therefore I have a hard time considering all that stuff as mitigating factors in this hearing. But I’m not on the jury.
And the jury has already agreed that Holmes wasn’t legally insane at the time of the crimes, even if he was mentally ill. I don’t think mental illness excuses people from punishment for their behaviour - especially if they were not legally insane. As such, I have yet to hear a single piece of evidence or testimony that would make me think there is a reasonable mitigating factor to consider for Holmes that would preclude him from the death penalty. We simply cannot ignore the magnitude of what he did. He didn’t just kill someone he was mad at, or one random individual. He planned months in advance to shoot at hundreds of people in a dark movie theater while making sure they were unable to escape or flee. He purchased, practiced with, and used 4 guns. He wore clothing and equipment to prevent himself from being identified, hurt, or emotionally damaged by what he was doing. He created a death trap in his apartment to divert the attention of the police. These are all proven facts. It’s not like he ‘started small’ … he went BIG time right away! I think maybe the worst part is that he STILL thinks this way and believes in his theory of human capital. He may or may not be sorry for killing 12 people and injuring 70 others. The only death he’s expressed regret about is the little girl’s.
**********
I’m confused. I just watched the rest of Mrs. Holmes’ testimony. When asked why she had only visited her son 3 times since he was arrested, her comments were that it was partly because the requirements for visiting Holmes are so strict that they’re difficult to do implement regularly. I’m surprised by this. In 3 years I’m sure the authorities would have made the proper arrangements more than 3 times if they were asked. I’m pretty sure that the lawyers of the jailed person in question could argue that not being allowed visitors on a regular basis - just as any other inmate is allowed - is cruel and unusual punishment. But I didn’t hear the end of Mrs. Holmes’ statement, so I’m not sure what else she said, but I think she must have mentioned something about Holmes not wanting visitors, but I’m not 100% sure she said that.
The rest of Mrs. Holmes’ testimony was what I anticipated. Nothing unexpected was talked about. And while she broke down again, it wasn’t as severe as earlier in her testimony. She did admit that her family is not very talkative and isn’t good at talking about their emotions. She also talked about how it was possible that she didn’t know her sister-in-law was so sick and claims to have asked her mother-in-law about it and was lied to.
Ms. Pearson did ask her some follow-up questions, but not very many, and she wasn’t very forceful.
**********
I then went back to watch the rest of today’s testimony that I missed - and wow did I miss something! Apparently while Mr. Brachler was doing his closing arguments for phase 2 there was a woman in the audience who started yelling in the courtroom. They arrested her and finished the closing arguments. Then they had a contempt hearing for this woman - Debra (or Deborah) Cave. The judge found her guilty of contempt and sentenced her to 3 weeks in the county jail! But the most interesting part was her continuation of her rant directly to the judge. She claims she tried to do things the proper way, but was denied. I have no idea what she meant by that. But apparently she’s sent Holmes letters and cards and photos while he’s been in jail since 2012. And she was pissed that authorities at the courthouse asked her questions and made her show them her identification. She’s also very upset that Colorado has a death penalty and claims that the only thing to come out of this trial is that the court will create 12 new murderers.
The judge, obviously, was not pleased. But interestingly this is the first time something like this has happened at the trial, so in some ways that’s pretty impressive. You’d think for a case this big, and one broadcasted live, that you’d see more outbursts, but we didn’t.
**********
I’m now watching Ms. Brady’s closing arguments for phase 2. She was really good. And she made a lot of good points. She played to the jury’s emotions and morality. The key point she made was that the severeness of the mental illness (i.e. mitigating factor) outweighs the aggrevators they’ve already heard about.
Ms. Brady very strongly implied that the medication that he was prescribed before the incident caused his delusions to become more real and remove any thoughts he had of doubt. She basically claimed that it was the medication’s fault. There’s no actual evidence of that - but I wonder if the drug company will end up being sued by someone?
Now Brachler’s closing arguments for phase 2. Obviously Brachler’s main argument is that there are no mitigating factors that outweigh any of the aggrevating factors. That the crime was so awful and terrible that none of Holmes’ personal history or mental illness can make up for what he did.
Brachler made an excellent point. He mentioned the fact that it is absolutely right for the jury to feel sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Holmes. But that sympathy for someone other than the defendant isn’t allowed by law as a mitigating factor. You can’t spare him from the death penalty because you feel sorry for his mom.
Brachler is also talking about Holmes’ childhood and rightly pointed out that kids change as they grow up. (Brachler is still referring him to as “this guy.”)
Brachler is asking the jury whether it would make a difference if Holmes only murdered 3 people or 4 people. And he’s going through each of the murder victims. Obviously he’s making the point that the murder victim list goes on forever, and it should not make a difference what the number was because what he did was so awful.
Brachler is now poking fun at Ms. Brady’s closing argument and the mitigating factors provided by the defense via the phase 2 jury instructions. It’s at this point that he gets interrupted by the woman who started yelling. Interestingly, everyone turned around to see what was happening - except Holmes. He continued to stare straight ahead.
He’s now making a point that the expert witnesses have said the mental illness isn’t the mitigating factor, but rather if that mental illness affected his ability to function.
“Malingering” is apparently the word they use to say whether or not someone is faking a mental illness. The doctors who have all spoken with him have said he is not malingering (i.e. not faking).
Brachler made another good point - that even though doctors have said that the event on July 20th would not have happened if he wasn’t mentally ill. But one of those doctor’s also pointed out that the event wouldn't have happened had he not moved to Colorado. So Brachler is trying to make the point that where do you draw the line? It’s a good point - do you blame the school for accepting him into the program and then not helping him do a good enough job? do you blame his girlfriend for breaking up with him? do you blame the stores where he bought his equipment for shipping the items to him? do you blame the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for approving his gun license application?
The jury is now in deliberations, but I'm not sure if they're working Friday or have the day off.
No comments:
Post a Comment