Chris court appearance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's be real here, all they'd need to extract a full confession out of Chris is a vaguely attractive police lady able to feign admiration for him taking such great care of Barb.
Ba-Bow
1628370335594.png
 
this might interest others, but on googling, here is a summary of the two standards that Virginia courts apparently use to assess if someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity; the M’Naughten test and the “Irresistible Impulse” test.

blank.gif

THE "RIGHT/WRONG" M'NAUGHTEN TEST

The guidelines for evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were codified in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naughten in 1843. M'Naughten was a Scottish woodcutter who murdered the secretary to the prime minister, Sir Robert Peel, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naughten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity."

Queen Victoria was not at all pleased with this outcome, and requested that the House of Lords review the verdict with a panel of judges. The judges reversed the jury verdict, and the formulation that emerged from their review -- that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them -- became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. The M'Naughten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century. In 1998, 25 states plus the District of Columbia still used versions of the M'Naughten rule to test for legal insanity.

blank.gif

: "IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE"

One of the major criticisms of the M'Naughten rule is that, in its focus on the cognitive ability to know right from wrong, it fails to take into consideration the issue of control. Psychiatrists agree that it is possible to understand that one's behavior is wrong, but still be unable to stop oneself. To address this, some states have modified the M'Naughten test with an "irresistible impulse" provision, which absolves a defendant who can distinguish right and wrong but is nonetheless unable to stop himself from committing an act he knows to be wrong. (This test is also known as the "policeman at the elbow" test: Would the defendant have committed the crime even if there were a policeman standing at his elbow?).

from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html#mn

I don’t know if Chris’s defense could scrape together enough facts to argue for the first one, but he’s definitely fucked on the “irresistible impulse” one. If there’s any truth to his statements about waiting three days each time before assaulting Barb, that’s way too methodical and calculated to pass the test.

Sorry, this is depressing - reminds me of how disgusting the conduct being charged really is.

Edit: oh btw, apparently the ILJ thread makes it clear that the defense lawyer is aware of her and doesn’t care to be informed about what role she might have played? Think that is the strongest evidence we have yet to suggest he’s planning and working towards striking some kind of plea bargain.
 
Either way, it's going to be a very long time before Chris is allowed to use the internet again.
Whatever jail he ends up in, the stories will be absolute popcorn.
Its just that we wont hear them.
However clever jail workers might leak some CCTV footage with commentary and get some popularity.
If they are aware of what Chris is
 
Whatever jail he ends up in, the stories will be absolute popcorn.
Its just that we wont hear them.
However clever jail workers might leak some CCTV footage with commentary and get some popularity.
If they are aware of what Chris is
Rainbows and shit, but maybe some bored corrections employee or ex-con will jump on here someday with some choice Chris stories.
 
So depending on how this goes does this mean that Chris could actually get a Wikipedia article?
Ironically, this one of the things Chris has wanted for a while, as he thought as himself as a big shot celeb. Even if it were done, Chris would still want some stuff omitted, and would want the the thing he did to Barb as a 'misunderstanding.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackboots
Imagine if Chris walks because physical evidence at the house gets accidentally destroyed/contaminated after some ween raids the place. Imagine if the ween gets caught and spends more time in jail than Chris for blowing a rape investigation.:story:
I'd imagine they've already bagged and tagged any shit they found there. Also to correct my previous post, apparently Chris used a condom every time. However, a condom with his DNA inside it and hers outside it would be pretty conclusive too.
 
What is with this fucking subset of mutt's law where you faggots bring up prison rape all the time?
in America at least, joking about prison rape is a common thing in popular culture, there are even youtube parodies, etc. maybe this is encouraged as a form of deterrence. but in reality, it doesn't happen as often as it's portrayed, and when it does, inmates usually get groomed/manipulated/blackmailed into sexual favors, rather than directly strong-armed. you wouldn't think that would happen, but I've heard that's the most common form of it.
 
in America at least, joking about prison rape is a common thing in popular culture, there are even youtube parodies, etc. maybe this is encouraged as a form of deterrence. but in reality, it doesn't happen as often as it's portrayed, and when it does, inmates usually get groomed/manipulated/blackmailed into sexual favors, rather than directly strong-armed. you wouldn't think that would happen, but I've heard that's the most common form of it.
Even then it doesn't happen that often. Null did a bit in a stream about this.
 
I’ve yet to go to an English speaking country that didn’t joke about prison rape.

I don’t know if it’s because America spread it around the globe, if it’s something inherent to the English speaking psyche or if all nations do it but I can’t speak the language.

(perhaps most disturbingly of all the common factor might be me)
 
I’ve yet to go to an English speaking country that didn’t joke about prison rape.

I don’t know if it’s because America spread it around the globe, if it’s something inherent to the English speaking psyche or if all nations do it but I can’t speak the language.

(perhaps most disturbingly of all the common factor might be me)
I've never heard it discussed in relation to European prisons. I can only ever think of at most Europeans talking about prison rape in relation to American prisons. Europe doesn't really have and isn't enamored with an overt prison culture the way the US is, at least not in my experience.
 
I’ve yet to go to an English speaking country that didn’t joke about prison rape.

I don’t know if it’s because America spread it around the globe, if it’s something inherent to the English speaking psyche or if all nations do it but I can’t speak the language.

(perhaps most disturbingly of all the common factor might be me)
Hollywood, Mecca of sexual predators, groomed America into thinking it's funny or acceptable by constantly bringing it up in TV and movies. Like all the other degenerate shit they try to normalize.
 
This was a preliminary hearing, and the defence attorney has indicated he would want some evaluations done.
It was an arraignment. Preliminary hearing is September 19. Often defendants waive this but I'm making a wild guess this won't happen in this case, even though nobody wins a preliminary hearing. Among other things I suspect will happen is exactly what @Jesus H Christ said, raising the issue of competency to stand trial. He could be found incompetent, especially if the mental evaluation comes back supporting that.

Note that this is an entirely separate issue from whether he's not guilty by reason of insanity. While the bar is low for competency to stand trial, courts often err in favor of a slight delay to make sure of the issue rather than risk a reversal on appeal. What happens then is Chris either gets sent into treatment in some kind of mental health facility until it is determined he is now competent, or possibly into some treatment ward of a jail.

A good thing for the defense about delay is in this case, Barb might die or go even more senile to the point of being incapable of testifying, if she isn't already. It's almost always the case that delays favor the defense. Memories fade, so do grudges, evidence somehow ends up lost, the prosecution might come to the table to get this miserable case behind them, etc., but in the case where it's fairly likely the prosecution's lead witness outright dies or becomes too senile to testify in the near future, it's worth throwing as many monkey wrenches into the system as possible.

On the good side for Chris, and what his attorney will probably decide, is that getting Chris out of that jail into a treatment facility until trial is the best outcome he can get for his client in the short term.

In short, I'm fairly sure the defense will file that motion.

In any event, the process from here on out is the preliminary hearing will determine whether there's probable cause and whether the probable cause is for a misdemeanor or felony. In the event it is a felony, it will be certified to the grand jury. If the grand jury agrees (which it will), an indictment is issued and then the fun starts in earnest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back