Now, I have nothing but the greatest respect for such storied members of the defense bar as Peter Ritchie, but really, the defense of stupidity for alleged mass murderer Robert "Willie" Pickton? Well, I suppose even a drowning man will reach for any piece of driftwood.
I'm not entirely sure "stupid," which, I believe, is a more than apt description of Pickton, is a sufficient defence for the DNA of scores of women found on his property. I mean, really, what kind of an idiot would think that it is just a coincidence that DNA of two murdered women would be found in the same place, let alone six or twenty six missing women?
We shall see in the coming days what exactly the defense of the apparently indefensible will be, but stupidity? Any port in a storm I suppose . . . .
The big hanging question for me in this is not whether Pickton is guilty, but who is the 2nd serial killer? Because, as sure as God made little green apples, there is another shoe to drop in this file.
Leo Knight
Posts
1 comment:
Leo, it's a good defence ..just a few months ago a S/Sgt withe the Calgary Police Service used the same defence when charged with running a fraud scheme and he won!.
So they took a S/Sgt who admitted he was too stupid to recognise crime when he saw it, and put him in charge of a bunch of Det's. before sending him back to the Tac unit to supervise some of his victims!
Post a Comment