It’s always made sense to me that a criminal must have opportunity, means and motive. What is missing here is motive, which suggests the possibility of insanity to me.
see post 34, especially the last paragraph. It is not necessary for the State to prove a motive to kill. It helps, but that’s not the key in an insanity case. It’s strictly a test of whether or not Holmes knew it was wrong.
I'm reminded of the Batman line: "Some people just want to watch the world burn". Lots of people are convicted of murder, whose only motive was that they got sexual satisfaction from killing the victim.
Henkster, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that for a finding of LEGAL insanity, the accused must be shown to be so insane that he's not aware of what he's doing. That while the rest of us know he strangled an eight year old girl, he sincerely believed he was destroying a demon or alien monster.
“What is missing here is motive, which suggests the possibility of insanity to me.”
The motive is the great joy and release he felt in killing people.
On the one hand, you can say that is “insane.” But it’s not insane as in, he didn’t know what he was doing.
There is great evil in the world. It’s not crazy. It’s just evil.
Please refer to my posts on this thread. There is a STRONG potential political motive here.