It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
People familiar with this portion of the proceedings told the Journal prosecutors couldn't argue the findings because they pushed for the competency exams.
Read more: www.upi.com...
Originally posted by xEphon
Have you read some of his stuff?
Why would the prosecution even attempt to claim he was sane?edit on 17-5-2011 by xEphon because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by intrepid
Could be a fiscal thing. He's obviously nuts. Why spend money trying him when he's already locked up? Millions saved on a trial. A question though, if he becomes stable enough to stand trial will it go ahead in the future?
Originally posted by IAMDOA
Of course they asked for it. They don't want a REAL trial. The only time you have the Prosecution ask for a competency hearing is when they don't want a trial. You can look it up. This has probably only happened in a handful of cases in the US. Most notable in the Susan Lindauer case. That was the former CIA asset that tried to speak out about 911. She was arrested on Thursday, 11 March 2004 and charged with "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government", then held in a military prison. In 2006, she was released from prison after Michael B. Mukasey ( remember this guy. He's a NWO lacky judge always there to do their bidding.) ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial. Therefore she was unable to have her day in court and tell her version of events and have it be on record. SOP This was more about killing the Judge than killing the Congresswoman. He got in Obama's way.