http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
The paratroopers were involved in very heavy fighting at night. They attacked, and they suffered great losses; we sent tanks to help them. And in the morning, I had two brigades fighting tanks from the north. We managed to evacuate the paratroopers, who had a great deal of losses. And on the other side, from afar we saw the brigade advancing from the south. I asked for another brigade of mine that was being held in reserve, and I received it; it was being held at the command. It advanced from afar; it had to move for about four hours. In the meantime, the Egyptians were advancing from the south, and at the same time we were lying underneath camouflage nets and the equipment, while the paratroopers fought at night, and we saw that they were not able to clear the entire area. I decided to take a calculated risk and, under cover of their fighting, I pushed all my crossing equipment, the rafts, to Sharon, and from six in the morning they began to make bridges over the tanks, under artillery fire. While he was building these bridges, andI was...
Monday, May 10, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
neutrino 448.neu.773 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
Electrons and Positrons
The electron has a mass of 0.000511 GeV/c2. The electron is the least massive charged particle of any type. It is absolutely stable because conservation of energy and electric charge together forbid any decay.
The antiparticle of the electron is called a positron. It has exactly the same mass as the electron, but the opposite sign (+1) for its electric charge. Positrons are also stable particles. However, positrons can annihilate when they meet an electron. Both the electron and the positron vanish, and their energy goes into photons and, possibly, more massive particles. Conversely, photons with sufficient energy (E > 2x (mass of electron) x c2) can produce an electron and a positron -- this is called pair production.
Muons (Greek letter for Muon)
The muon has a mass of 0.106 GeV/c2. The negatively charged muon (mu-minus) is just like an electron, except it is more massive. Muons are unstable -- they decay to produce a virtual W-boson and the matching neutrino type. The W-boson then decays to produce an electron and an electron-type anti-neutrino.
The antiparticle of a mu-minus is a mu-plus. Particle physicists use the name muon for either mu-plus or a mu-minus a muon. The mu-plus decays to produce an anti-muon type neutrino and a W-plus boson, which then decays to a positron and an electron-type neutrino.
Muons are produced in particle physics experiments. They also are produced by cosmic rays. Because they are much more massive than electrons, muons readily pass through the electric fields inside matter with very little deflection. So, muons do not radiate and slow down as electrons do. However, they can cause ionization and this makes them readily detectable in matter, for example, with a Geiger counter.
Tau Leptons (Tau Lepton symbol)
The tau-minus is a electron-like particle with a mass of 1.784 GeV/c2. Its antiparticle, the tau-plus, has the same mass but a positive electric charge. These particles were discovered at SLAC in experiments at SPEAR. The 1995 Nobel Prize was awarded for this discovery.
This third type of charged lepton is also unstable. The tau-minus decays to produce its matching neutrino and a virtual W-minus boson. The W-minus has enough energy that there are several possible ways for it to decay, such as:
1. An electron and an electron-type antineutrino.
2. A um-minus and an muon- type antineutrino.
3. A down quark and an up-type antiquark.
4. An s quark and an up-type antiquark.
The quark and antiquark do not emerge individually. One or more mesons emerge from the decay that contain the initial quark and antiquark, and possible additional quark-antiquark pairs produced from the energy in the strong force field between them.
For tau-plus, a similar set of decays occurs -- just replace every particle by its antiparticle (and vice-versa, every antiparticle by the matching particle.) Thus, for example, tau-plus can decay to give a tau type anti-neutrino and a positron and an electron-type neutrino.
Neutrinos (Electron Neutrino, Muon Neutrino,Tau Neutrino)
There are three types of neutrinos, one associated with each type of charged lepton. All are particles that are somewhat like electrons: they have half a quantum unit of spin angular momentum, and do not participate in strong interactions.
However, neutrinos differ from electrons in that they have zero electric charge and, as far as we know today, zero mass. Experimentally, all we can do is set an upper limit on their masses -- they are smaller than some value. Larger masses would have had observable effects in some experiment. The limits are:
* electron neutrino less than 0.00000002 GeV/c2 for electron type neutrinos (or antineutrinos).
* muon neutrino less than 0.0003 GeV/c2for muon type neutrinos (or antineutrinos).
* tau neutrino less than 0.04 GeV/c2for tau type neutrinos (or antineutrinos).
The only known difference between the three neutrino types is which type of the charged lepton they are associated with during production or decay processes.
Since neutrinos have no electric charge, they participate only in weak interaction or gravitational processes. For this reason, they are very difficult to detect. We observe them only by the effects they have on other particles with which they interact.
For example, a high-energy electron-type neutrino can convert to an electron by exchanging a W-boson with a neutron (which becomes a proton when it absorbs the W boson). This rarely happens. With an intense source of neutrinos and a large detector containing many neutrons, one can observe events with no visible initiating particles that can only be explained as neutrino-initiated processes. What is seen in the detector is the recoiling electron and proton after the process occurs. (Experimental work demonstrating this process resulted in Frederick Reines sharing the 1995 Nobel Prize with Martin Perl.)
Even harder to see is the process where the neutrino is deflected by exchanging a Z-boson with a proton or neutron. The proton or neutron gains energy from this exchange, so one searches for events where a recoiling proton or neutron is seen with no associated electron and no visible initiating particle.
In high-energy particle experiments, we often use energy and momentum conservation to infer that production of one or more neutrinos occurred. If the detector detects everything but neutrinos, then an event where the total final energy detected (or the total final momentum) does not match the initial energy (or momentum) in the incoming particles, then neutrinos must have been produced. The neutrinos carried off the missing energy (and momentum).
Electrons and Positrons
The electron has a mass of 0.000511 GeV/c2. The electron is the least massive charged particle of any type. It is absolutely stable because conservation of energy and electric charge together forbid any decay.
The antiparticle of the electron is called a positron. It has exactly the same mass as the electron, but the opposite sign (+1) for its electric charge. Positrons are also stable particles. However, positrons can annihilate when they meet an electron. Both the electron and the positron vanish, and their energy goes into photons and, possibly, more massive particles. Conversely, photons with sufficient energy (E > 2x (mass of electron) x c2) can produce an electron and a positron -- this is called pair production.
Muons (Greek letter for Muon)
The muon has a mass of 0.106 GeV/c2. The negatively charged muon (mu-minus) is just like an electron, except it is more massive. Muons are unstable -- they decay to produce a virtual W-boson and the matching neutrino type. The W-boson then decays to produce an electron and an electron-type anti-neutrino.
The antiparticle of a mu-minus is a mu-plus. Particle physicists use the name muon for either mu-plus or a mu-minus a muon. The mu-plus decays to produce an anti-muon type neutrino and a W-plus boson, which then decays to a positron and an electron-type neutrino.
Muons are produced in particle physics experiments. They also are produced by cosmic rays. Because they are much more massive than electrons, muons readily pass through the electric fields inside matter with very little deflection. So, muons do not radiate and slow down as electrons do. However, they can cause ionization and this makes them readily detectable in matter, for example, with a Geiger counter.
Tau Leptons (Tau Lepton symbol)
The tau-minus is a electron-like particle with a mass of 1.784 GeV/c2. Its antiparticle, the tau-plus, has the same mass but a positive electric charge. These particles were discovered at SLAC in experiments at SPEAR. The 1995 Nobel Prize was awarded for this discovery.
This third type of charged lepton is also unstable. The tau-minus decays to produce its matching neutrino and a virtual W-minus boson. The W-minus has enough energy that there are several possible ways for it to decay, such as:
1. An electron and an electron-type antineutrino.
2. A um-minus and an muon- type antineutrino.
3. A down quark and an up-type antiquark.
4. An s quark and an up-type antiquark.
The quark and antiquark do not emerge individually. One or more mesons emerge from the decay that contain the initial quark and antiquark, and possible additional quark-antiquark pairs produced from the energy in the strong force field between them.
For tau-plus, a similar set of decays occurs -- just replace every particle by its antiparticle (and vice-versa, every antiparticle by the matching particle.) Thus, for example, tau-plus can decay to give a tau type anti-neutrino and a positron and an electron-type neutrino.
Neutrinos (Electron Neutrino, Muon Neutrino,Tau Neutrino)
There are three types of neutrinos, one associated with each type of charged lepton. All are particles that are somewhat like electrons: they have half a quantum unit of spin angular momentum, and do not participate in strong interactions.
However, neutrinos differ from electrons in that they have zero electric charge and, as far as we know today, zero mass. Experimentally, all we can do is set an upper limit on their masses -- they are smaller than some value. Larger masses would have had observable effects in some experiment. The limits are:
* electron neutrino less than 0.00000002 GeV/c2 for electron type neutrinos (or antineutrinos).
* muon neutrino less than 0.0003 GeV/c2for muon type neutrinos (or antineutrinos).
* tau neutrino less than 0.04 GeV/c2for tau type neutrinos (or antineutrinos).
The only known difference between the three neutrino types is which type of the charged lepton they are associated with during production or decay processes.
Since neutrinos have no electric charge, they participate only in weak interaction or gravitational processes. For this reason, they are very difficult to detect. We observe them only by the effects they have on other particles with which they interact.
For example, a high-energy electron-type neutrino can convert to an electron by exchanging a W-boson with a neutron (which becomes a proton when it absorbs the W boson). This rarely happens. With an intense source of neutrinos and a large detector containing many neutrons, one can observe events with no visible initiating particles that can only be explained as neutrino-initiated processes. What is seen in the detector is the recoiling electron and proton after the process occurs. (Experimental work demonstrating this process resulted in Frederick Reines sharing the 1995 Nobel Prize with Martin Perl.)
Even harder to see is the process where the neutrino is deflected by exchanging a Z-boson with a proton or neutron. The proton or neutron gains energy from this exchange, so one searches for events where a recoiling proton or neutron is seen with no associated electron and no visible initiating particle.
In high-energy particle experiments, we often use energy and momentum conservation to infer that production of one or more neutrinos occurred. If the detector detects everything but neutrinos, then an event where the total final energy detected (or the total final momentum) does not match the initial energy (or momentum) in the incoming particles, then neutrinos must have been produced. The neutrinos carried off the missing energy (and momentum).
Friday, April 16, 2010
phenomenons 338.phe.0003 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
It is not easy to conclude such a long and complicated story. First, it must be made clear that Dayan never was an archaeologist. Only blind followers can call him �a superb archaeologist� (Slater 1991:161). Dayan was a robber of antiquities, who had never acquired nor showed the slightest interest in acquiring scientific knowledge, such as methods of excavation, dating, stratigraphy, etc.� This is the very soul of archaeological excavation, which should never be a crude search of nice finds. Dayan never took academic courses in archaeology, though he had an opportunity in 1959. His allegedly �deep knowledge� was confined to antiquities-dealing- identifying forgeries, estimating monetary value, bargaining and possessing �merchandise�.
8.2���� Dayan honestly loved his hobby and was searching for roots and everything that could come under that term. When he became Minister of Defense in 1967, he chose four pictures �reflecting Jewish history� to decorate his office- including one of the Egyptian temple at Serabit el Khadem (Dayan 1976:354-5).� He associated all antiquities with his roots, because he related it first of all with himself. Chalcolithic or Canaanites dwellers were his forebears, this was the important point, and not the religion they practiced. Hence those who disliked Dayan�s allegedly �Canaanite� or �un-Jewish� preferences miss the point (e.g. Sheshar 1986; Rosenson 1991).� Dayan was eclectic in his collection. What allured him was the �hunting�, the sense of danger and excitement, the pride in doing it himself and the desire to possess. Possession was a key motive in his life. Archaeologists also know the same desire- we often err in speaking about �our sites�, �our finds�. Archaeologists collect books- a sublimation of the same desire. But this is legitimate, and we do not use army helicopters for that aim.
8.3���� The evidence indicates the immense scope of Dayan�s illicit robbery of antiquities during three decades. From an innocent help by friends, he gradually developed nets of informers and accomplices- children, soldiers, robbers and dealers. From symbolic gifts, he moved into precious items on the antiquities-markets. Nothing mattered except possession: Dayan robbed sites even when they were being excavated at the same time by professional archaeologists; hampered scientific excavations while robbing sites; damaged sites with bulldozers; and used army equipment and personnel for private gains.
8.4���� Miberg�s verdict (1991:20), that Dayan corrupted in his archaeological activities the whole archaeology of Israel is too extreme. Yet, Dayan�s activity caused a lot of damage by undermining principles of law and order in a democratic state. Dayan corrupted others. Army commanders started to cultivate their own collections; citizens erected private antiquities gardens. Dayan did not invent or cause all these phenomenons, but because of his high public status, he became a negative model for others.� It is common for modern states to use archaeological sites and finds in order to prove common descent, rights to disputed territories, and political legitimacy. Archaeology and antiquities are used to weld social bonds and consciousness that build nations (cf. Smith 1991; Anderson 1983).� While antiquities belong to humanity in general, we still leave in a world of nations in which antiquities are said to belong to nations. Although this is not an ideal system, it is far better than the former world of antiquaries and private ownership of antiquities.� Thus, one cannot justify Dayan as a sort of modern Robin Hood who fights �the establishment�.� Dayan was part and parcel of the establishment, and all his digging and robbing were done to satisfy his private greed.�
It is not easy to conclude such a long and complicated story. First, it must be made clear that Dayan never was an archaeologist. Only blind followers can call him �a superb archaeologist� (Slater 1991:161). Dayan was a robber of antiquities, who had never acquired nor showed the slightest interest in acquiring scientific knowledge, such as methods of excavation, dating, stratigraphy, etc.� This is the very soul of archaeological excavation, which should never be a crude search of nice finds. Dayan never took academic courses in archaeology, though he had an opportunity in 1959. His allegedly �deep knowledge� was confined to antiquities-dealing- identifying forgeries, estimating monetary value, bargaining and possessing �merchandise�.
8.2���� Dayan honestly loved his hobby and was searching for roots and everything that could come under that term. When he became Minister of Defense in 1967, he chose four pictures �reflecting Jewish history� to decorate his office- including one of the Egyptian temple at Serabit el Khadem (Dayan 1976:354-5).� He associated all antiquities with his roots, because he related it first of all with himself. Chalcolithic or Canaanites dwellers were his forebears, this was the important point, and not the religion they practiced. Hence those who disliked Dayan�s allegedly �Canaanite� or �un-Jewish� preferences miss the point (e.g. Sheshar 1986; Rosenson 1991).� Dayan was eclectic in his collection. What allured him was the �hunting�, the sense of danger and excitement, the pride in doing it himself and the desire to possess. Possession was a key motive in his life. Archaeologists also know the same desire- we often err in speaking about �our sites�, �our finds�. Archaeologists collect books- a sublimation of the same desire. But this is legitimate, and we do not use army helicopters for that aim.
8.3���� The evidence indicates the immense scope of Dayan�s illicit robbery of antiquities during three decades. From an innocent help by friends, he gradually developed nets of informers and accomplices- children, soldiers, robbers and dealers. From symbolic gifts, he moved into precious items on the antiquities-markets. Nothing mattered except possession: Dayan robbed sites even when they were being excavated at the same time by professional archaeologists; hampered scientific excavations while robbing sites; damaged sites with bulldozers; and used army equipment and personnel for private gains.
8.4���� Miberg�s verdict (1991:20), that Dayan corrupted in his archaeological activities the whole archaeology of Israel is too extreme. Yet, Dayan�s activity caused a lot of damage by undermining principles of law and order in a democratic state. Dayan corrupted others. Army commanders started to cultivate their own collections; citizens erected private antiquities gardens. Dayan did not invent or cause all these phenomenons, but because of his high public status, he became a negative model for others.� It is common for modern states to use archaeological sites and finds in order to prove common descent, rights to disputed territories, and political legitimacy. Archaeology and antiquities are used to weld social bonds and consciousness that build nations (cf. Smith 1991; Anderson 1983).� While antiquities belong to humanity in general, we still leave in a world of nations in which antiquities are said to belong to nations. Although this is not an ideal system, it is far better than the former world of antiquaries and private ownership of antiquities.� Thus, one cannot justify Dayan as a sort of modern Robin Hood who fights �the establishment�.� Dayan was part and parcel of the establishment, and all his digging and robbing were done to satisfy his private greed.�
Saturday, April 10, 2010
enjoy 3329.enj.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
I didn't enjoy living through it, and I don't enjoy seeing it romanticized.
If you're taking young children – and there were plenty of preteens at the performance I attended – be aware there is simulated sex, real nudity and lots of profanity. Additionally, contrary to the prayers of Man in Chair, the fourth wall crashes down with alarming regularity.
I didn't enjoy living through it, and I don't enjoy seeing it romanticized.
If you're taking young children – and there were plenty of preteens at the performance I attended – be aware there is simulated sex, real nudity and lots of profanity. Additionally, contrary to the prayers of Man in Chair, the fourth wall crashes down with alarming regularity.
Monday, March 29, 2010
accepted 33.acc.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
Around Christmas, Gary Heidnik cruised the streets looking for another woman. As he turned into Lehigh Street, he found her. Nineteen-year-old Lisa was on her way to a girlfriend's house when Heidnik pulled up beside her in the Cadillac. He leaned out of the window and made a suggestive comment but she became angry and told him she wasn't a prostitute. He quickly apologized and offered her a ride instead. Mollified by the change in his demeanor and his impressive car she accepted.
He lured the young woman to his home by buying her a meal and some clothes and offering to take her to Atlantic City. Then he drugged Lisa with some wine and when she passed out, he raped her, handcuffed her and took her to the basement with his other "slaves."
Now there were three young women of the ten that Heidnik planned to abduct. As they talked about their situation, they wondered how seven more women would ever be able to live in the small basement, let alone any children they might eventually have. Their only hope was that one of them or a future victim might be able to escape and get to the police.
Around Christmas, Gary Heidnik cruised the streets looking for another woman. As he turned into Lehigh Street, he found her. Nineteen-year-old Lisa was on her way to a girlfriend's house when Heidnik pulled up beside her in the Cadillac. He leaned out of the window and made a suggestive comment but she became angry and told him she wasn't a prostitute. He quickly apologized and offered her a ride instead. Mollified by the change in his demeanor and his impressive car she accepted.
He lured the young woman to his home by buying her a meal and some clothes and offering to take her to Atlantic City. Then he drugged Lisa with some wine and when she passed out, he raped her, handcuffed her and took her to the basement with his other "slaves."
Now there were three young women of the ten that Heidnik planned to abduct. As they talked about their situation, they wondered how seven more women would ever be able to live in the small basement, let alone any children they might eventually have. Their only hope was that one of them or a future victim might be able to escape and get to the police.
Friday, March 12, 2010
informs 33.inf.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
Part 1: Introduction
During a hypnotic regression early on in my research, an abductee told me that the aliens who had abducted her were deliberately shielding her from the shock of having to see what they looked like.* They were concerned about her emotional well-being and although she could see their bodies, the aliens were preventing her from seeing their faces. I listened to this account and felt that it was logical and rational. I found no reason to doubt it, although there seemed to be something slightly "off kilter" about it that I could not figure out. The problem I eventually confronted was whether her memory was correct or not. The solution to this problem lies within the interrelationship between psychological expectations of what takes place in an abduction, and the abduction phenomenon's objective reality. Often it is this relationship that informs the thought of both abductees and researchers and causes problems.
From the beginning of the abduction phenomenon, debunkers, critics, and proponents have organized their knowledge about abductions based on incomplete evidence and culturally determined attitudes. As knowledge grows, theories must be revised. As we learn more, the verities of the past become the naivetes of the present. All knowledge is subject to change as new evidence is developed. With this is mind, we must revise some of our assumptions in light of new, sometimes disconfirmatory, and even disturbing, information. Although there is much that needs to be rethought, I would like to discuss some theories and thinking that presently need critical reevaluation.
____________________
Part 1: Introduction
During a hypnotic regression early on in my research, an abductee told me that the aliens who had abducted her were deliberately shielding her from the shock of having to see what they looked like.* They were concerned about her emotional well-being and although she could see their bodies, the aliens were preventing her from seeing their faces. I listened to this account and felt that it was logical and rational. I found no reason to doubt it, although there seemed to be something slightly "off kilter" about it that I could not figure out. The problem I eventually confronted was whether her memory was correct or not. The solution to this problem lies within the interrelationship between psychological expectations of what takes place in an abduction, and the abduction phenomenon's objective reality. Often it is this relationship that informs the thought of both abductees and researchers and causes problems.
From the beginning of the abduction phenomenon, debunkers, critics, and proponents have organized their knowledge about abductions based on incomplete evidence and culturally determined attitudes. As knowledge grows, theories must be revised. As we learn more, the verities of the past become the naivetes of the present. All knowledge is subject to change as new evidence is developed. With this is mind, we must revise some of our assumptions in light of new, sometimes disconfirmatory, and even disturbing, information. Although there is much that needs to be rethought, I would like to discuss some theories and thinking that presently need critical reevaluation.
____________________
Saturday, February 27, 2010
jury 34.jur.003 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
If Mullin was legally insane, and did not comprehend what he was doing was wrong, then why did he take such careful measures to cover his tracks? Assistant D. A. Chris Cottle told the jury that after killing White, he sandpapered the blood stains off the baseball bat. He picked up the shell casings at the Gianera house, he claimed, "because they belonged to me." Mullin shot Francis and her kids because they were witnesses. He ground off the serial number on his .22 caliber gun. While the prosecutor presented his case, Mullin, who usually avoided looking at anyone in the court, glared at Cottle.
But Mullin had already undermined his case with reckless comments. Sometimes he sounded coolly sane and rational. In an earlier interview, Mullin said that he killed Joan Gianera because "she was a witness and I didn't want to be punished."
The quake theory was "developed as an afterthought," according to one court-appointed psychiatrist who had examined Mullin. He killed Gianera for getting him into drugs, and Joan, Kathy and Daemon and David because they were witnesses. He killed the campers because "he had a thing about hippies, and he described them as hippies." Another court-appointed psychiatrist said that his motivation was pure hatred. "He told me John Gianera introduced him to LSD, and that ruined his life and he took revenge."
In a strange split, Dr. Charles Morris testified that after examining Mullin, he concluded that he was legally insane when he murdered the transient, the hitchhiker, and the priest, but legally sane during the last ten murders. In January, when he quit doing LSD in hopes of becoming a Marine, Mullin killed out of revenge (with the exception of Perez). He had been made morally numb by killing his first three victims, so that killing again, especially out of anger, no longer carried moral consequences. Perez was shot, he argued, because Mullin was tired and wanted to get caught.
Dr. Morris contended that it was probably LSD that precipitated the murders. In response, defense attorney Jackson read a note from Mullin, and asked the doctor if the rambling was written by someone on drugs.
The doctor acknowledged that it was possible. The note was dated July 1973, months after Mullin had been incarcerated. It was a complaint, written to the judge by Mullin regarding court procedure.
Mullin's claim that he heard the victims telepathically agree to be killed, said Dr. Morris, was a concocted rationalization. "He developed this belief as an afterthought," he said, and wasn't surprised by Mullin's cosmic sacrificial excuses. "He's an individual with a high mental capacity and an interest in the occult, psychology, and philosophy."
One doctor testified that Mullin told him, "I chose to be vindictive (because these people) caused me to be an objector in the greatest country on earth, so I punished them."
Legal Insanity
There was no question that Mullin was mentally ill. To prove the legal definition of insanity, the defense had to demonstrate that Mullin did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the murders. If he was found legally insane, then he would be found not guilty by the jury. If the jury found that Mullin was suffering from "diminished capacity," in that he did not understand the meaning of his actions, he could not be found guilty of first degree murder. The prosecution told the jury it did not matter "why" Mullin killed. Motives are ambiguous, and not necessary to prove. In countering the defense's theory that Mullin's delusions made him kill, the prosecution said, "simply because two plus two equals seven (in his mind) does not mean Mr. Mullin is not responsible for his acts."
In closing, the defense asked the jury to consider the fact that Mullin "kills people because he has to but he doesn't know why. I suggest that a person who kills thirteen people and doesn't know why . . . is MAD!"
The prosecution told the jury, "There's no question he's mentally ill, seriously mentally ill. But that does not mean he's legally insane." He hid his crimes, and even ground down the serial numbers on his gun.
Verdict
The six man, six woman jury deliberated for over fourteen hours, finding Mullin sane and guilty. The verdict was delivered on August 19th, 1973. Mullin premeditated the deaths of Jim Gianera and Kathy Francis, thereby making two counts of first degree murder. The rest were considered "impulse" by the jury, therefore second degree murder.
"It's as insane as Mullin is," said his defense attorney Jackson. "They were afraid because he might get out and kill somebody — which is not an illogical consideration. They didn't want his fourteenth victim to be one of them." The prosecution was disappointed with only two counts of first degree murder. Mullin only shrugged when he heard his verdict. Mullin was sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole in 2025.
But Mullin's case didn't sit right with the jury foreman. He soon took action.
If Mullin was legally insane, and did not comprehend what he was doing was wrong, then why did he take such careful measures to cover his tracks? Assistant D. A. Chris Cottle told the jury that after killing White, he sandpapered the blood stains off the baseball bat. He picked up the shell casings at the Gianera house, he claimed, "because they belonged to me." Mullin shot Francis and her kids because they were witnesses. He ground off the serial number on his .22 caliber gun. While the prosecutor presented his case, Mullin, who usually avoided looking at anyone in the court, glared at Cottle.
But Mullin had already undermined his case with reckless comments. Sometimes he sounded coolly sane and rational. In an earlier interview, Mullin said that he killed Joan Gianera because "she was a witness and I didn't want to be punished."
The quake theory was "developed as an afterthought," according to one court-appointed psychiatrist who had examined Mullin. He killed Gianera for getting him into drugs, and Joan, Kathy and Daemon and David because they were witnesses. He killed the campers because "he had a thing about hippies, and he described them as hippies." Another court-appointed psychiatrist said that his motivation was pure hatred. "He told me John Gianera introduced him to LSD, and that ruined his life and he took revenge."
In a strange split, Dr. Charles Morris testified that after examining Mullin, he concluded that he was legally insane when he murdered the transient, the hitchhiker, and the priest, but legally sane during the last ten murders. In January, when he quit doing LSD in hopes of becoming a Marine, Mullin killed out of revenge (with the exception of Perez). He had been made morally numb by killing his first three victims, so that killing again, especially out of anger, no longer carried moral consequences. Perez was shot, he argued, because Mullin was tired and wanted to get caught.
Dr. Morris contended that it was probably LSD that precipitated the murders. In response, defense attorney Jackson read a note from Mullin, and asked the doctor if the rambling was written by someone on drugs.
The doctor acknowledged that it was possible. The note was dated July 1973, months after Mullin had been incarcerated. It was a complaint, written to the judge by Mullin regarding court procedure.
Mullin's claim that he heard the victims telepathically agree to be killed, said Dr. Morris, was a concocted rationalization. "He developed this belief as an afterthought," he said, and wasn't surprised by Mullin's cosmic sacrificial excuses. "He's an individual with a high mental capacity and an interest in the occult, psychology, and philosophy."
One doctor testified that Mullin told him, "I chose to be vindictive (because these people) caused me to be an objector in the greatest country on earth, so I punished them."
Legal Insanity
There was no question that Mullin was mentally ill. To prove the legal definition of insanity, the defense had to demonstrate that Mullin did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the murders. If he was found legally insane, then he would be found not guilty by the jury. If the jury found that Mullin was suffering from "diminished capacity," in that he did not understand the meaning of his actions, he could not be found guilty of first degree murder. The prosecution told the jury it did not matter "why" Mullin killed. Motives are ambiguous, and not necessary to prove. In countering the defense's theory that Mullin's delusions made him kill, the prosecution said, "simply because two plus two equals seven (in his mind) does not mean Mr. Mullin is not responsible for his acts."
In closing, the defense asked the jury to consider the fact that Mullin "kills people because he has to but he doesn't know why. I suggest that a person who kills thirteen people and doesn't know why . . . is MAD!"
The prosecution told the jury, "There's no question he's mentally ill, seriously mentally ill. But that does not mean he's legally insane." He hid his crimes, and even ground down the serial numbers on his gun.
Verdict
The six man, six woman jury deliberated for over fourteen hours, finding Mullin sane and guilty. The verdict was delivered on August 19th, 1973. Mullin premeditated the deaths of Jim Gianera and Kathy Francis, thereby making two counts of first degree murder. The rest were considered "impulse" by the jury, therefore second degree murder.
"It's as insane as Mullin is," said his defense attorney Jackson. "They were afraid because he might get out and kill somebody — which is not an illogical consideration. They didn't want his fourteenth victim to be one of them." The prosecution was disappointed with only two counts of first degree murder. Mullin only shrugged when he heard his verdict. Mullin was sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole in 2025.
But Mullin's case didn't sit right with the jury foreman. He soon took action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
