James Holmes’ lawyers enter insanity plea; here come the insane psychiatrists
by Jon Rappoport
June 7, 2013
“What do you do for a living?”
“I slap fictitious disease labels on people and poison their brains.”
“Sounds good. We want you to examine a defendant and determine whether he was morally competent on a specific night a year ago.”
“Piece of cake.”
That’s what we’re dealing with now in the Batman murder case.
The psychiatrists have taken over.
James Holmes’ lawyers have entered an insanity plea in the Aurora- theater massacre case, and the judge, Carlos Samour, has just accepted it.
From Lawyers.com: “When the insanity defense is raised, it’s an admission that the defendant performed all of the acts alleged by the prosecution. For this reason, if the jury rejects the insanity defense, the defendant will almost certainly be convicted.”
In other words, Holmes’ lawyers have said Holmes committed the murders, but he was insane at the time. He didn’t know right from wrong, he was driven to murder by an irresistible impulse caused by a mental disorder.
So now Holmes will be sent to a Colorado hospital for at least several months, where psychiatrists will make up their minds about whether he is/was insane on the night of July 20, 2012, at the Aurora theater.
Eventually, unless Holmes changes his plea to a simple “guilty,” a trial will take place. In the trial, the jury will decide whether he was sane or insane when he committed murder. The psychiatrists who examined Holmes will, of course, factor into that decision.
At minimum, the jury’s verdict will put Holmes in prison or a psych ward for the rest of his life. If the jury decides Holmes was sane last July, the likely sentence will be death.
In other articles, I have discussed whether Holmes was in the theater last July, whether he killed anyone, whether he was set up as the patsy. Here, I’ll look at what happens now. Because the legal consequences of the insanity plea are as crazy as a bunch of cockroaches when the lights suddenly go on late at night in a garbage dump.
At a Colorado hospital, psychiatrists will check Holmes out from every angle, to determine whether, last July, he could distinguish right from wrong when he supposedly entered the Aurora theater and killed people.
The doctors will give him drugs. These drugs are highly toxic. They can and do cause brain damage. Their effects can be so horrendous the patient will admit to anything, just to stop further dosing.
Holmes must cooperate with the psychiatrists as they adjudicate his state of mind last July 20th. If he doesn’t, it increases the likelihood that he’ll be sentenced to death—as opposed to life in prison. Why? Because at his sentencing hearing, his lawyers will be barred from calling “psychiatric experts” to testify on his behalf.
Where did this preposterous rule come from?
“Cooperate now with the shrinks or die later.”
If Holmes is now insane (whatever that means), then the psychiatrists will be working with a crazy man to find out whether he was sane or crazy when he supposedly committed murder a year ago.
“We know and accept, Mr. Holmes, that you’re crazy now, but we want you to try to remember whether you knew the difference between right and wrong when you committed multiple murders last July.”
What could possibly go wrong?
So do the psychiatrists start out by trying to make Holmes sane (whatever that means) now, and then quiz him about the events at the Aurora theater last summer?
If so, how do they make him sane? With anti-psychotic drugs that have been documented to cause motor brain damage? These brain-hammer drugs also can reduce a person to a state of utter incoherence.
On the other hand, if Holmes is “sane” now, then when psychiatrists ask him whether he could distinguish right from wrong when he killed people in the Aurora theater, he will certainly say no. He’ll say he was crazy then. Who wouldn’t? In other words, Holmes’ statements will be meaningless as evidence.
Enter the “narcoanalytic review,” which was authorized by the court several months ago. Under this plan, Holmes can be given “truth drugs,” to allow him to recall accurately his actions and state of mind on the evening of July 20, at the theater.
There is only one problem with that. There are no reliable truth drugs. They don’t exist. Many drugs have been tried. They all fail to perform consistently.
Apparently, the court overlooked this small glitch.
And then there is the serious matter of forced self-incrimination, which is against the law. If the drugs do happen to open a window of accurate memory for Holmes, and he reports that he was a killer who knew right from wrong last July, he is sealing his fate. The jury will almost certainly give him a death sentence. But his admission will only have occurred because he was involuntarily drugged.
Holmes’ lawyers have already warned him that, if he comes back to court in several months, claiming he is now sane, claiming he is guilty, claiming he did the killings and knew right from wrong, he’s sunk. He’ll probably be executed.
So why should Holmes take that route? The simple answer is: a deal. The prosecution might agree to recommend life in prison instead of death, if Holmes says: “I’m sane now. I did the murders. I confess. I know the difference between right and wrong. I change my plea to guilty.”
The court most assuredly wants a nice clean boy-scout confession of guilt. The court doesn’t want an unseemly trial with a dozen shrinks from both sides arguing about Holmes’ state of mind and which mental disorders he suffers from.
The shrinks don’t want that, either. It would expose the fact that they aren’t doing science of any kind. They’re playing with words and making it up as they go along. They can’t agree among themselves about which lies make more sense.
The craziness surrounding what happens to Holmes from now forward can be laid at the feet of psychiatry. Specifically, the right of psychiatrists to decide whether a defendant is sane or insane.
These terms aren’t just relative. They aren’t merely fictions. They’re deployed to open the door to forced dosing with toxic and destructive drugs. The assumption that these drugs allow the emergence of truth about prior events and crimes is insupportable.
On top of that, you can drug a person and thereby get him to admit anything, because he doesn’t want more of the drugs.
A rational layperson sitting in front of a criminal defendant could find out everything the court needs to know, if psychiatrists and other coercive law-enforcement types were kept out of the picture.
You ask the defendant, “Are you willing to answer my questions?” If he won’t reply or seems unable to, or can only offer gross non-sequiturs, everything stops there. The defendant is left alone in his cell, where nothing is done to him. No treatment, no drugs.
He stays there until he can and will answer questions.
Meanwhile, the prosecution, the defense, and an empaneled citizen grand jury (free of the influence of lawyers), would endeavor to investigate the crime and discover the truth. That burden would principally fall to the grand jury.
On the other hand, if the defendant is willing to answers questions posed by a rational non-partisan person, a brief interview takes place. The defendant states he is guilty or innocent. A trial is then scheduled.
If the defendant states he committed the crime but didn’t know what he was doing at the time, there is no trial. There is a sentencing hearing. The defendant’s position about his state of mind becomes part of the testimony at the hearing. The defendant testifies, submits himself to cross-examination. The jury decides whether the defendant knew what he was doing when he committed the crime.
If the defendant refuses to testify and invokes his Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating himself, the jury takes that into consideration in doling out the sentence.
Is this system perfect and air-tight? By no means. But it’s far better than what happens when psychiatrists get into the act.
Psychiatrists employ destructive drugs, intimidation, covert threats, and their decisions on sanity versus insanity are utter garbage, because they’re based on opinion filtered through a maze of pseudoscience unsupported by diagnostic tests.
The psychiatrists who will now examine Holmes are supremely unqualified to determine whether Holmes knew or knows right from wrong. They have no special skills. They are all about diagnosing people with fictional mental disorders and drugging them to the gills with toxic chemicals.
In a world where even a shred of reason exists, these charlatans wouldn’t be allowed within a hundred miles of a defendant.
But alas, this is not the world we live in.
Every time I write an article refuting the scientific basis of psychiatry (and I have written several), some apologist tries to argue that psychiatry employs a “different kind” of science.
That argument carries zero weight. For every one of the 300 officially certified mental disorders, there are NO diagnostic tests. No blood test, no saliva test, no urine test, no genetic test, no brain scan.
To verify this, all you need to do is open the tome, published by the American Psychiatric Association, called the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Look for the definitive tests. They aren’t there. They aren’t anywhere.
There’s a reason for that. They don’t exist.
These state-licensed con artists and poisoners are committing RICO crimes every day of their professional lives.
To say they can tell us anything useful about James Holmes is like saying Al Capone can do surgery on a car-crash victim and stop the internal bleeding.
Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St, Martin’s Press, 1991.
Mad In America, Robert Whitaker, Perseus Publishing, 2002
Rappoport, “The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole,” “The lying liars who lie about psychiatry,” “The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture”
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com