Friday, April 15, 2011

Twitchell Case

This is going to be a brief, blunt post because to be frank, I hate the fact that I am writing about this scumbucket at all. During the time the trial was progressing I tried to know as little as possible about the entire thing; the whole notion disgusted me. I wish I could say I was happy that he had been sentenced to first degree murder, but considering I had hoped we would reinstate the death penalty to deal with him, it is small comfort.
Wow. Okay, heavy handed much?
A little, I suppose, but hey, at least it isn't election news. The recent scandal at Guelph, the back-and-forth of Helena Guergis, and the constant "Harper bad/Harper good" rhetoric is starting to fray my nerves. So on to the point.

Twitchell was found guilty of first degree murder and, we hope, will never see the light of day unencumbered until such time as he is decrepit. But was justice served in the right way? It is now coming to the public attention that there were pieces of evidence that were never brought to the jury's attention. When he attempted to claim that he had killed in self-defense, the victim's mother made a statement about how her son would never have become violent. Admittedly, it is hard to take a grieving mother at her word, but the reliability of a testimony should be left up to the jury - this should not have been left out. Also left out were some of Twitchell's facebook updates, made under the pseudonym "Dexter Morgan", a serial killer from a popular TV show, which stated he was pleased with how the weekend's kill went - a few days after the murder.  (Being familiar with the show I find Twitchell's interest in it especially grotesque, considering the bulk of the show deals with Dexter's strict moral code to never kill an innocent person . Ironically, Dexter would have derided what Twitchell had done). This evidence, of course, could be explained away by considering he could simply have been discussing the show, but still lends a little more evidence to the depravity of the man.

The final piece of evidence not submitted is a series of entries to his diary. The majority of which discuss the actual process of dismembering his victim, which were omitted because it was felt they were too prejudicial to allow the jury to accurately assess Twitchell's guilt. There is so much wrong with this notion, I can not even begin to discuss. The reason they are too prejudicial is because they are damning evidence, if we begin a precedent of disqualifying over-obvious evidence, we run the risk of losing other cases, cases that might not be a slam-dunk as this one was.

The other entry that was not included is one in which Twitchell describes why he thinks he is a psychopath. This evidence should have been brought up to demonstrate why Twitchell is NOT a psychopath. The tone alternates between floating loftily above the "human race" and acknowledging his position among them. Occasionally he even lies to himself - declaring he is fully capable and functional in one paragraph, then complaining how he barely gets by on menial jobs in another; describes how he never feels pity or remorse, then waxes poetic about experiencing all of life's emotions; discusses how to best mislead his wife, while putting women on a pedestal. He reminds himself to lie to his wife while preventing future slip-ups; not something a true psychopath ever forgets since lying is not a conscious act for them, it is done in the same fashion as you or I might swat at a mosquito - to achieve an end. As if all this was not compelling enough, he confesses he feels a great love for his daughter - something psychopaths are literally incapable of doing.

Even the very fact that he felt the need to sit down and write all this tripe out, in a self-aggrandizing, self-important, preposterous fashion, disqualifies him from being a genuine psychopath. They don't need reminding, or a pat on the back for how they are, they just know it, and if there's a label - whatever.

My friend, a graduate student in psychology, had a more accurate assessment for him - he is simply delusional. Maintaining delusions of grandeur, that he was some sort of mastermind, genius, or executioner, while operating on the lowest level of competence possible for living an independent existence. Given that he probably considers the resultant fame from this a "compliment" I shall speak no more on him, suffice to say this: the best revenge we can give him is to forget even his name.

No comments: