First and foremost, my heart goes out to all the victims of this tragedy. Yet I must apologize for the following speculative diary since I cannot help pondering the future of this terrible case.
The defense attorney for the suspect in the Tucson massacre has an impossible task ahead of her: Save a client who is already greased for the Arizona death chamber in light of an overwhelming avalanche of evidence against him.
So how does, exactly, even a celebrated defense attorney save her heinous client in a death penalty state with the proverbial noose already around his sorry neck?
More under the fold.
Pundits have suggested one avenue of escape for the suspect is irretrievably closed: The "He Didn't Do It" Defense. It's hard to argue that "he didn't do it" in the face of eyewitness accounts and presumably area store videos of the actual crime.
The only other possible defense is "He's Insane." Another impossible nut to crack. Inasmuch as the suspect remains lucid and in full control of his emotions following the crime, by all accounts. Premeditation, too, of which the subject has, reportedly, amply indulged, will also work to the defense's extreme disadvantage. Arizona criminal law is also extremely biased against the insanity defense.
I postulate "The Manchurian Candidate Defense."
First, let us all recall the 1962 movie (the original, of course) and the dilemma of poor Raymond who, after all, was just a pawn in Mother's very deep game of advanced right-wing subversion politics.
Second, let us remember the unsubtle hints immediately following the crime from the outspoken sheriff who lamented the vitriol spewed on hate radio and on a certain unnamed televsion station.
Third, let us consider the unknown: namely, what law enforcement authorities and criminal justice experts have removed from the suspect's home.
Fourth, and most importantly, let us consider the most truly incredible legal aspect of this horrific case: the fact that the suspect remains alive and in custody and in good health.
I think from the foregoing, we can pretty well expect a very good chance of a treasure trove of evidence that will have a great deal of bearing on the suspect's motive in embarking on his murderous rampage.
It seems to me that his attorney will have to make "motivation" a vital part of the case, since "He Didn't Do It" and "He's Insane" might be impossible roads to traverse.
And here is where it gets very, very, very nasty for our right-wing friends:
What if the suspect's motivation can be proven to have originated in the non-stop welter of "suggestions" he may have been addicted to on radio and television?
What if a case could be made, legally speaking, that this emotional wreck of a human being was the exact sort of personality susceptible to a steady drip-drip-drip of faux outrage, propoganda and assorted winks and exhortations from "respected" politicians and members of the media?
I am suggesting that IF such overwhelming evidence of fascination with a certain set of viewpoints and third-party input exists, and IF the suspect's attorney is able to get through to her client, and IF he is able to grasp that his life may depend on rolling over on his "mentors in the media" so to speak, this may well form the basis for a fascinating ...
Manchurian Candidate Defense Strategy.
Imagine, if you will, a day in court that will begin:
"Glenn Beck, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?"
I can.