[SeeGeeWhy]

I wrote a really long post and lost it on an accidental bookmark bar click. Glad that happened because I was detailing my logic based on everything I've read on the trial so far and it's caused me to reconsider this response. I do not wish to repeat so much of what is already out there (too much), and my opinions are not sensitive to what a horrible scar this is on our city's heart.

Thanks to the other members who commented on my last post which turned into a bit of a derail. I have always understood the process to be that an NCR could only be pursued after a verdict was given. Thank you to MBates for clarifying. I now take my understanding as perhaps an observation of what is merely a common but savvy tactic of defense strategy. Mbates, your commentary on mental health perspectives in the public is apt foil in my view. I had so many questions about the way this trial played out, and your comments have allowed me to become more steadfast on my previous speculation of what the defense is doing.

I'm not a lawyer, but Section 16 of the criminal code states:

"No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong."

If that is truly the legal test... that the defendant has to be deemed a discerning moral agent, capable of making choices between right and wrong... well, I am sorry to say it, but I don't think Douglas Garland would pass that test. Not because he didn't understand PERFECTLY what he was doing, but that he had NO CAPABILITY of determining that it was morally wrong. And from what we know about him, the picture is that he has been like this for a very long time; perhaps his entire life. Is there a mental disorder that could cause this? Or is the temporal quality of mental health, especially in law, only considered in short term segments?

I am just going to say it. I do not think there is any question he performed the actions he is accused of, and perhaps worse. If we are to believe any of the back story, those actions were totally unjustifiable. Not even mildly understandable. So he gets cut out of some IP that didn't work out... so what? He didn't lose out on any money. You do not do what happened over a business disagreement that he may totally been wrong about, yet also had zero financial consequences. I am also not a mental health professional, but in my opinion no sane person does what he did, in the way he did it, for the reasons that are presented.

But too way too much was left unsaid during the trial. I just sense that the defense wanted to move on from the question of "did he do it?" as quickly as possible... so they could start digging into the question "did he know it was wrong?".

Terrible. I really hope I am wrong. I really do.