“I say the jury was a bit muddle headed”
I seem to recall that the hung jury asked for more info. on what it means to be “insane”. They were instructed to use all of the guidance given to them in the trial, with emphasis on something like to declare him insane meant that he didn’t know the severity of his actions or if they were wrong. (It wasn’t exactly that - but something like that).
The defense lawyer said they couldn’t be instructed anymore (like what is considered “wrong”) and the judge upheld it citing some long-standing precident.
As I said, these weren’t the exact terms. But my thought upon reading it was “Well of course in Seattle you aren’t going to come up with an agreement on what is right or wrong - even when it comes to killing someone.”
(By the way, if he was so insane as not to think he had done anything wrong - why did he grab a hostage to try to avoid capture?)
Opps - I should have read the article.
“Haq grew a goatee, then shaved it off ....He tried platform shoes to increase his height and donned a toupee....and had strangely swollen ankles.”
Seems like he had all sorts of justification to shoot up a Jewish center. I think it was Sam Mallone that offered these words of wisdom: “There’s no such thing as bad boys, only bad haircuts.”
I read that too, it's hard to figure out without hearing from the jurors. Since it was a single incident, to me the not guilty means they rejected the insanity defence on some level. How you can commit a single crime and be sane on one count, insane on another is beyond me. The jurors reasoning would be interesting to hear.