There was. He should have been either severely incapacitated of dead. Even hardcore addicts (more hardcore than him) have died, with lesser dosages, from the #### alone. In such cases the person died wih the syringe still in their arm. That's how fast it should have worked. Considering he had a needle mark in each arm, most people believe that he wouldn't have had time to tie the tourniquet, inject himself, untie the tourniquet, refill the syringe, retie the tourniquet, inject himself, untie the syringe, put the kit all neatly away, then shoot himself. And what did he need 3 shells for? Did he plan on missing? Maybe going hunting afterwards? Logically, neither of those would have worked.
Honestly, I think that it was just suicide. There isn't that much evidence to point otherwise, so there's no point in opening the case again.
However, didn't one of the detectives/investigators say there was too much "medicine" in Kurt's body at the time of death for him to have pulled the trigger properly?
You want proof? Let's start with the simplest of things...
In all the times someone has walked up to Courtney and accused her of murdering him, she has yet to say, "I didn't kil my husband."
Or the fact that she planted stories in the press, once on April 3rd, once on April 5th, of her overdosing. Why? The answer is this: He was at the Lake Washington house on the 3rd, but left alive. He died on the 5th. In interviews around this time, she mentions a suicide pact. See how it was supposed to appear?
If you need more proof or have a rebuttal to my evidence, just ask. I don't like to give much away without a request, and I find it easier to supply evidence on specific topics.
"AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: "AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: "Vampire Poison" wrote: I'm not exactly sure about this one, I do feel like we should have the death penalty, and then again, I think it's cruel. I believe that it depends on the kind of person and what their crime is. I would feel a lot safer if a person who was a serial killer wasn't around anymore.
Again, the Anders Breivik case is a great example of a country treating a mass murderer like a human being rather than a monster (after all, we are a little bit old to be believing in monsters).
So...after reading up on him, I'm very surprised.
He was the Taliban's Taliban.
But he's twisted. He should not of been deemed sane. He should be spending the rest of his days in Solitary Confinement.
Would locking this man in a small space and letting his mind corrode even further really service anyone? Would you or I actually be better off? Do you think the victims' families will be safer at night knowing we've crushed the psyche of a murderer? Being in prison is good enough, and he'll stay in prison as long as he's a threat, I see no reason that we need to torture him (and that is exactly what indefinite solitary confinement is), other than to satisfy our primal desires. This is why I consider this such a progressive decision. Treating even mass murderers like human beings who still have potential value is progress.
Crushing his psyche is more humane then killing the man. And at this point, he's not going to be much good to society. Not every psychopathic murderer can come back to be a good citizen. Should he get a shrink? Of course. But if he's deemed "broken beyond repair" I don't see why we should let him be among others, so that he can either be martyr'd for his beliefs in jail or kill a Muslim who is in the prison, or spread his message to to others.
The compromise is that we need to have a volley of psychological tests to determine if they could be fixed (And yes, i know it's not that simple...but its better then letting EVERY SINGLE PSYCHOPATH in a regular prison) and use those tests to place them either in a regular prison, or have a makeshift Arkham Asylum, or solitary confinement.
I think you're confusing high-security and solitary confinement. There is absolutely no reason to keep anybody in solitary confinement indefinitely. We do not need to kill him, or crush his psyche, we have other options. IF he is still deemed unsafe, they can deal with him as they see fit. Obviously if he presents an active danger to other inmates, he should be kept away, but I seriously question the idea that we should preemptively punish him for things he hasn't actually done yet. I don't disagree that it's a case-by-case basis, obviously not every murderer can be reintegrated into society, but if there's even one, don't you think we should give him that opportunity? I think we should start by assuming that every one can be rehabilitated (which obviously won't happen), and then narrow it down from there, not the other way around. Prison is not about making people uncomfortable, it should be about keeping society safe, and about reintegrating violent criminals into a safe society.
about 1 hour