Week 7 Post

[Margaret de Beauvoir stands, her right hand on her heart, her left hand on the bible, and swears to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the court of law.]

MARGARET: Good afternoon honorable judge Wiggenbottom, members of the prosecution, and the jury. I stand before you today in the defense of Ms. Holly Sargis, who is pleading not guilty on the felony accounts of arson, trespassing, robbery, and being a witness and accomplice to murder as suggested by the prosecution. It is the belief of the defense that Ms. Sargis was not of the right mind at the time of the aforementioned crimes, and therefore cannot be held culpable for the actions of her accomplice, who at multiple moments on the course of their journey, coerced her into acting in ways uncharacteristic of Ms. Sargis. We believe these actions to be representative of her condition as insane.

JUDGE: Good Afternoon. You may begin with the presentation of evidence.

MARGARET [Clears Throat]: Thank you Your Honor. There are multiple points during the escapade described by the prosecution which prove not the guilt of Ms. Sargis, but instead the degree to which her mental state had deteriorated, and she had been subject to the coercive influence of Mr. Kit Carruthers. This is not to say that Ms. Sargis was taken hostage, or in the beginning of their journey did not consent to their travels. However, this is to say that her conviction should be lessened due to her mental state. The confessional of Mr. Carruthers as having said on the record that he -- and I quote -- "always wanted to be a criminal, I guess" is provides staunchly corroborating evidence of the following arguments.

For example, the candidness with which she speaks about the the joy she found in a life of crime and terror is not unlike that of serial-killer manifestoes, and testimonies of the clinically insane. In recounting the events to the police, the real and true chronicle of the events, Ms. Sargis has failed to provide evidence of conviction. Instead, she has only proven her status as psychiatrically unfit to receive the same penalty as Mr. Carruthers.

It is faulty to say, for example, that a person of sound mind would find joy in "roughing it" as Ms. Sargis does at multiple points in her testimony. The consumption of salt grass, as well as her utter lack of possessions, seems to be romanticized and almost desirable to Ms. Sargis. Because she is neither a ruminant beast, nor a primeval hunter-gatherer, it is safe to assume that the events along the journey Ms. Sargis was on pushed her mental faculties beyond the point for which she may be held criminally accountable.

It is also true that at no point in their journey did Ms. Sargis find a gun in her hands, or ever intend to shoot or kill another human being. In fact, after each of the consecutive murders enacted by Mr. Carruthers, the testimony shows that Ms. Sargis was taken aback, lacked understanding of the rationale behind the killings, or was frankly emotionless with regard to events that preceded or followed. Her role was thus not of an active participant, and her actions in no way informed those of Mr. Carruthers. It is clear that she lacked intent to harm others, and her actions cannot be linked to a broader effort to participate in a criminal ring. These actions are also characteristic of Battered Women Syndrome, whereby the failure to "flee" or run from an abusive partner does not make the defendant guilty in a court of law. There is truly no sound prosecution of Ms. Sargis, and it is with that that we conclude our brief opening statement with a plea of not-guilty on account of insanity and coercion.

Thank you.