Doctors doubt Loughner's competency (and prosecutors shoot self in foot since they asked for it).

okay, prepare to get mad:

Loughner is not "competent" enough to stand trial, says a doctor evaluation.

Now prepare to get madder:

Prosecutors asked for the evaluation

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...

So the prosecutors asked for the mental exams that now prove Loughner is not fit to stand trial. Can the prosecutors be applauding themselves over this or was this the biggest blunder in Pima County history (other than the marine getting shot 71 times a few days ago).

Have you read some of his stuff?
Why would the prosecution even attempt to claim he was sane?

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)

This is what is completely mind boggling, they must have wanted this thing not to go to trial. That could be indication of a set up.

reply to post by filosophia


Loughner was clearly insane.

I don't think we needed doctors to tell us that.

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?

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.

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?

So in other words, so much for a "speedy trial?" I guess since the 4th amendment is gone what's the point of the 6th?

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.

Thanks IAMDOA,


Great to have an ATS member on board who does their research. It's incredible how many folks recently arrived somehow just blurt out what they saw on TV and the mainstream news without so much as thinking on their own two neurones, much less going to any trouble to undertake independent research. What's the point of doing that here? It's not because we're on a conspiracy forum that we don't already have access to TV coverage or a newspaper propaganda.


Kudos


GS