No relation to me whatsoever
Posted on 02/28/2011 8:20:01 AM PST by Colofornian
The insanity trial of admitted killer Christopher A. Gribble begins Monday with the selection of jurors who will decide whether Gribble was legally insane when he and Steven Spader slaughtered a Mont Vernon mother and maimed her daughter during a random 2009 home invasion.
His trial in Hillsborough County Superior Court likely will differ from that of his machete-wielding accomplice Spader, found guilty by a jury Nov. 9 of all six counts of first-degree murder, attempted murder and related charges.
Gribble, a Brookline Eagle Scout, admitted he stabbed and slashed local nurse Kimberly L. Cates, 42, to death with a knife and nearly killed her daughter, Jaimie, then 11, in the pre-dawn attack, but claimed he was insane at the time and not criminally responsible.
Gribble's public defenders, Donna J. Brown and Matthew E. Hill, must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Gribble suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the Oct. 4, 2009, home invasion and his actions were the result of that defect.
Since Gribble admitted to the crimes and opted out of a trial on his guilt or innocence, jurors may not hear the same degree of disturbing testimony presented at Spader's trial -- detailed accounts of the terrifying attack and graphic descriptions of the 50 wounds inflicted on Cates and her daughter, some cutting through bone and partially amputating Jaimie Cates' foot.
This jury's sole job will be to decide whether insanity drove Gribble to commit the crimes. Prospective jurors
Jurors will hear from a number of state and defense expert witnesses testifying to Gribble's psychiatric condition.
While the defense has not disclosed Gribble's alleged mental disease, Gribble told the court Dec. 6 he was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and briefly took Prozac to treat it in 2007. He said he had not been diagnosed with any other psychiatric condition.
Since Gribble's confession was ruled admissible at trial, jurors also likely will get a glimpse into Gribble's demeanor and state of mind at the time of the attack. A state police investigator said a polite, cooperative and engaging Gribble calmly described the thrill-kill home invasion, described himself and Spader as "sociopaths," then led police to the spot where he and Spader buried the machete and knife.
The court sent out 1,000 questionnaires to prospective jurors and received more than 400 responses, judiciary branch spokeswoman Laura Kiernan said. Jurors will be called to court in large panels today and Tuesday for preliminary instructions and screening. Individual questioning of potential jurors begins Wednesday and is expected to continue at least through the end of the week until 16 jurors are seated.
Trial is tentatively set to begin with opening arguments and testimony March 9, Kiernan said. It is not yet known if jurors will view the crime scene. Testimony is expected to last nine days, Kiernan said. Eagle Scout, Cadet
Gribble is a high school graduate who grew up a devout Mormon and attended Sunday school at Spader's next-door neighbor's house. He belonged to the local Boy Scout chapter and achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in 2007. He built a maintenance shed at the Brookline transfer station as his Eagle Scout project.
Gribble also belonged to the U.S. Army Cadet Corps, a nonprofit career program similar to Junior ROTC for teens interested in exposure to a military lifestyle and leadership opportunities, the corps chief of staff Col. Joseph M. Land Sr. said. Gribble was a private 1st Class cadet in the Nashua unit -- where his father, Richard, was a unit officer -- until about 2007 when he failed a leadership course, Land said.
"He was not very successful in that time as evidenced by his lack of promotion and failure to pass the standards of our leadership course," Land said.
"He was a very peculiar young man," the chief of staff of the national organization added. "Some cadets get on my radar because they are either high maintenance or peculiar. He was a very strange young man."
Describing Gribble's father, Richard, as "one of the most pleasant gentlemen you will ever meet," Land said, "This is a case where the apple has fallen far from the tree."
Gribble said he briefly worked at a local Subway sandwich shop in 2008 and 2009 and was doing "odd jobs" at the time of the attack. They included driving Spader to classes at Nashua Community College, a job Spader's father hired him to do, according to court testimony.
The state has more than 75 witnesses on its list. They include Amherst teens Quinn Glover and William Marks, both 19, who helped plan and participated in the home invasion. Neither was charged in connection with the actual attack. Hollis resident Autumn Savoy, 21, who pleaded guilty to helping cover up the crimes, also is on the state's witness list. Glover, Marks and Savoy struck plea deals in which they agreed to testify as state witnesses in exchange for lesser sentences.
Who is defending this guy? You are arguing against a strawman. If this guy was the Priest or a national/international leader, papers would probably be pushing it. But hes not. He is a murderer that was a Mormon at some point and also a Boy Scout. Those are the facts presented.
Its really a shame how insecurity can lead people to using someone’s death to further their own beliefs. This story has nothing to do with religion. Would you be concerned for the victims if the perpetrator had not been a Mormon?
I think there are two ways to deal with a religion you dont like or have left. You can try and convert those members to what you believe, or you can find every example of someone related to that religion acted badly in order to justify yourself and have a feeling of righteousness. But only one of those options brings people to Christ.
So is his point invalid because other bad things have happened to other people?
IF????
Again, I am looking at this thru the eyes of Mormon leaders...apparently YOU are not.
Again, the Mormon church ushers their "priesthood" in at age 12...if you don't want to acknowledge that, fine. Suppress it, then.
It's the MORMON CHURCH their 12-year-old & up "priesthood" -- not me...
It's the MORMON CHURCH that claims to be the "only true and living church on the face of the earth" (D&C 1:30) -- thereby elevating their priesthood above even the RC priesthood or the Protestant "priesthood of all believers" -- not me...
I'm simply saying if the media treated these Mormon priests with the exact same standards they treat any other priests of any other religion, then the splash would be greater.
All I've done is hold them up to their own elevation of who they claim to be their own to be. If you don't want to, I'm not asking that you acknowledge...but you are the one who's gone on the attack of me -- all because you continue to ignore such realities...
Well, by all means, Sam, please lecture us all from your pulpit on precisely where religion begins and where it ends.
Are their "prescribed" "religious" times?
Is it Sunday, or will you cater to 7th -Day Adventists & Jews & say it's Saturday. Or both?
And what about the true earlier Sabbath...which wasn't just Saturday but sundown Friday til sundown Saturday. Is that "religious" time -- but the rest of the week is "secular?"
Are "religious" people only "religious" when they DO religious things?
Are Christians only occasionally "Christians?"
Is there such a reality in God's eyes as part-time "Christians" or part-time "Mormons?" Really?
Where's your chapter&verse on that one, Raider Sam?
Does that come from the first book of Raider Samuel, 3:16?
Is a Satanist who murders for religious reasons acting religiously? Or no?
Are you able to sort that all out for people?
On all future Satanist-based murders, you'll be able to crystal ball it for us & say, "You know on that given hour, the Satanist was acting pretty secularly, and, hey, he committed murder. But you know, it had NOTHING to do with his religion."???
What about Mormons who killed in the 19th century -- for example the 1850s -- who used the Mormon doctrine of "blood atonement" as the motivation?
Do you know exactly what Gribble's motive was? (Since you seem to know all things pertaining to this case, please share)
Some people claim the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 had NOTHING to do with the Mormon religion. So should all references to "Mormon" regarding on that matter be stricken from the record?
Are you going to take your white-out and wipe out all references to "Mormon" from all history books about that massacre because of your obsessive need to protect Mormons?
If not, why not?
Are you going to go on your castigating crusade and question all historians who have mentioned "Mormons" in conjunction with the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Yes? No? You refuse to answer these questions on the ground that it might incriminate your two-faced approach to things?
If not, why not?
Where's your crusade consistency?
If you're going all out to de-link Mormons from any same-sentence tie-in to murders, then have at it! Get busy! There are a LOT of articles, books, online content that mentions a LOT of Mormon-based crime! Since you are so 100% sure-- like omni-science sure -- that ALL of that crime has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Mormon faith, and if you are so SECURE in that position, by all means...please explain how much other work you've done to erase all that supposed "nonsense" by writers & historians & journalists who have the audacity to go against Raider Sam's all-knowing will that Mormonism should be censored out of all that content!
And if you haven't, please explain why I am your lone target re: your de-linking campaign?
Also, please explain why you are more provoked by my actions than by a Gribble character stabbing/slashing two victims up to 50 times? Why have you initiated so many posts about my behavior -- but you don't seem to be too provoked over Gribble's?
On another thread, not necessarily. On this thread -- where Blue Moose tries to turn the focus from two victims victimized by a Mormon murder to some property damage that their insurance $ has already kicked in and rebuilt at little-to-no financial loss to the church, yes.
Blue Moose, like you and a few other Mormon allies, repeatedly attempt to make this thread about somebody other than Gribble.
For BM, this thread's been about Mormon buildings being victimized -- not about the Gates family. Why should Mormons like BlueMoose care about victims of Mormon murderers? (By comparison, Blue Moose has simply raised a straw man not relevant to the thread)
For you & a few other posters on this thread, it's been about me -- the messenger...to take the focus off of the news reality about Gribble. (Another straw man...sorry, my actions aren't banner heads on the East Coast)
Discerning by the posts you've written on this thread, apparently according to your worldview, the provocateurs of the world aren't the slashers who go about amputating feet, and slaughtering the mothers of 11 yo -- perhaps before the very eyes of the 11 yo...no, what seemingly upsets you is that Web content and commentary isn't "censored" enough for your standards.
Apparently, you would like ANY and ALL religious references removed media-wise from any criminal acts if associated with the criminal. [BTW, did you go to the link of this article & write a letter-to-the-editor asking them to remove that paragraph about Gribble being a "devout Mormon?" If not, why not? Where's the consistency of your outrage re: "Mormon" references? Aren't you being rather "choosy" about that?]
What's ironic in all this that I originally planned to only highlight the religion reference in my first two posts and move on...yet YOU have ensured that the entirety of the thread focus remains on the religious adherence of this murderer...you, Raider Sam, along with a few other posters, have ensured that Mormonism remains front & center -- no matter how much you keep trying to make the thread about me.
You know last week I was listening to Dennis Prager on his call-in show. Prager, of course, is a conservative Jewish talk-show host. Prager told a caller that he was rather disappointed that so much political talk gets into one person questioning another's motive -- instead of the other's position.
Prager made it clear that conversations could better stay on the up & up if people would stop trying to play God (or what I would call play clairvoyant) & insert motives into the other's behavior. Prager even went further than I would on that matter...in that I think you can at times ASK [that's ASK, not ASSUME] what somebody's motive is...Prager didn't even think you should ask...even according to the context of that call -- which was a brother-to-brother story being told by the caller.
How much more so shouldn't we assume motives of complete or near-complete strangers?
So. Sam. When you say that the apparent goal of somebody is to self-"justify" & "have a feeling of righteousness" -- are you superimposing motives there?
What's your basis of this special gnosis -- this knowledge of what others' motives are?
How are you able to actually reach in and ascertain this inner "feeling" somebody else has?
Do you realize why FR has a guideline about mind-reading?
How does that guideline differ from you claiming that if somebody is negative toward somebody else's religion, the ONLY option you allow for (the other "way" you mentioned), is a feelings-based motivation of (self) righteous justification?
Why is this post of yours so assumption-heavy that you can clairvoyance the feelings of all others who dare mention negative things about religious others?
Are you consistent, Sam, in applying such "feelings of righteousness" & self-justification as superimposed motives onto other people?
How do we know you're assigning motives and engaging in mind-reading? You used the words "in order to". "In order to" is a PURPOSE phrase. You are telling the world that you know the very inner-feeling based purpose of why others "find...example[s] of" religious others "act[ing] badly."
Sam and all: Please read the passage below that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians. Or at least just the first verse. The context here is that Paul thinks the Galatians are acting badly re: their legalism.
According to Raider Sam's perceived theological mousetrap, Paul had two options in dealing with the Galatians:
Option 1: Either persuade "those members to what" Paul believed was the best course to pursue.
Option 2: Or, if he dared to focus on how the Galatians "acted badly," then the apostle Paul MUST be guilty of "justify[ing]" himself and "hav[ing] a feeling of righteousness."
Here's the passage:
1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is EVERYONE who does not continue to do EVERYTHING written in the Book of the Law.” (Gal. 3:1-6, 10)
Well, whoa! The apostle Paul called the Galatians "foolish." And "bewitched," too! Whoa!! So, Sam. You've left no other alternative as to why anybody would ever practice a "tough love" approach to accountability: Apparently, the apostle Paul found a religious example of people acting "badly," and simply -- per your inner gnosis diagnosis -- must have had this need to "justify" himself and exert (self) "righteousness" over & above the Galatians!
ALL: Don't you just "love it" when we have such modern-day clairvoyants who are able to psycho-analyze complete strangers from such a distance??? (Ah, the marvels of modern technology!)
Oh and Whoa! Look out, Paul...(I guess we know who'll be rebuking the guy who wrote half of the New Testament when we get to heaven, eh?)
Well, let's see. Here's one other question, Sam.
BlueMoose was highlighting arsonist-criminals in his link. A case could be constructed that...
(1)...arsonists who act anti-religiously are acting upon generic religious motives -- even if we never know specific motives. [See more below on how I believe nobody is 100% irreligious...and therefore how even anti-religious behavior cannot be 100% de-linked from a person's religious convictions/affections]
Therefore...
(2)...it would seem to me that both you, Sam, and BlueMoose hint here that it's "OK" on this thread to discuss...
...religiously-based "anti-Mormon" sentiments of arsonist criminals...
...yet the tenor of all your other posts on this thread is that we shouldn't be discussing the religiously based "Mormon" ties of murderer criminals.
I ask you: Why do you imply Sam that the "anti-Mormon" (or at the very least potential religious) sentiments of arsonist criminals is a "valid" point to discuss on this thread; yet the "Mormon" sentiments of a murderer criminal is somehow invalid & off-base?
Doesn't that appear inconsistent to you, Sam?
My explanation as to why I believe nobody is 100% irreligious:
A hard-boiled atheist who claims God doesn't exist can be 100% so convicted of that; and perhaps has more faith in that premise than many "religious" people do about their convictions.
Ann Coulter in one of her books mentions how liberals' "faith" in liberalism is just as much a "faith" as Christians. Misguided, yes. But still it constitutes a "faith."
My contention is that even atheistic pagans act religiously. Nobody is God-free or idol-free. That vacuum becomes filled. It can be a belly, the apostle Paul told the Colossians. It can be another person. It can be the American Idol winner or some celebrity. It can be Satan. It can be $. It can be an addiction like sex or substance abuse. It can be self.
Nobody is ultimately 100% "irreligious." (By degree, some are more so than others; but even negative convictions about religion are themselves religious convictions -- even if drawn at the well of the cult of "self").
All at least worship at that altar of self or $ or a relationship -- if not some thing. They religiously adhere either to an idol, a series of idols, or pretend gods, or THE real God.
Hence, all arsonists who attack religious buildings have underlying "religious" justifications/convictions about why they think that's "OK" to do that...[And I state for the record that these acts are reprehensible]
So why are the arsonists' sentiments presumed to be wide-open on the table for thread discussion here; but if you happen to be a murderer of a certain religious persuasion, and if that wee little sentiment association is mentioned, well, hell hath no fury than if that given sentiment is scorned.
Somehow I totally missed this thread.
Now that I have found it though it’s very interesting. Colo is getting a big spot light shined on his bizarre, obsessive behavior. He resorts to some of the same old tactics but it’s still not working. /popcorn
You can look at at in any way you want, but my point remains:
If he was a priest, the media would be all over it. But he’s not, so they’re not.
As for what makes it a religious thread, I think a simple question should be asked:
Was his action done in the name of, inspired by, or done in conjunction his religion?
As for the victims, the only person on this thread using their death for personal gain is you. Where have you shown compassion for the victims? Should every murder be put in the religion forum because the murderer at sometime was religious?
Im glad to know that points become invalid because the thread they are posted on, rather than the merit they have.
The East Coast media is all over it.
(Yeah, never mind the facts for you. Just "play it down" anyway you can)
From www.wmur.com: "Gribble is described as being a devout Mormon who was working with his church to become a missionary.
But certainly, 'tis true the national media could be highlighting this case more than it is.
In any other religious group, a would-be missionary slashing to death one victim and nearly killing her daughter with his trusty Boy Scout knife he got while on a California trip with Mormon Boy Scouts would be significant news.
Should every murder be put in the religion forum because the murderer at sometime was religious? [your post #32]
(Would-be missionaries for you? Oh ho hum...According to Raider Sam's finely tuned calculator that measures all people...worldwide even...of what % degree of "religiosity" they have in each fiber of their being, a guy gearing up for his Mormon mission barely tips in @ .000000000000000000001% of "religiousness"...and even then, it was probably -- as Raider Sam Mormon marketing-wise claims -- 'twas "at sometime was religious"...)
You at least brought a good chuckle with these latest claims.
(I don't know if I should encourage you to keep it up...on the one hand it brings hilarity to a serious issue...on the other hand, I wonder what Kimberly Cates' daughter, Jaimie, would say to your face if she saw on this thread that you were consistently more provoked over someone who highlighted the injustice of her attack and her mom's murder than you were the murderer himself...in that sense, I think I might have to agree with Jamie were she to conclude what a pathetic creature you are...frankly, I would hope that she simply forgive you)
No relation to me whatsoever
Funny question from somebody's who's had 9 posts on this thread...and you could barely bring yourself to personally reference the murderer in only one post...and that was because you were challenged!
Oh, and don't let overwhelming moral revulsion creep in to your descriptions of this horrific slasher.
Let's see again. What was your first description of the would-Mormon missionary slasher called by you?
(Oh, yeah: Post #21: Who is defending this guy?)
"Guy"?????
(Well, at least you recovered quickly enough in that post to at least realize he was alao a "murderer")...But strange...NO MENTION at all of him personally in any of your other eight posts.
Why, how provoked you are by murder! /sarc
Maybe...just maybe...it's time to actually cut you a break. Maybe you continue to be more provoked by somebody highlighting this injustice -- vs. the act of this cruel slasher -- 'cause you just haven't been exposed to what he did:
Jaimie Cates told police that she tried to escape the bedroom where the crime took place, but that Gribble grabbed her, stabbed her in the right lung and tried to stab her in the heart through the back. According to documents, Gribble then threw the girl against a glass door and she fell to the floor. He then kicked her and slashed her in the face with a machete. Documents stated that Gribble said if he would have known Jaimie Cates was alive, he would have killed her because he didn't want her to have to live with the aftermath of the killing.
Source: Christopher Gribble
She would probably wonder why you are using her mother’s death as nothing but a means to an end.
So, again, where have you shown compassion? You are the one complaining about a lack of it, so where is it? But keep writing long boring diatribes that no one will read, if it makes you feel better.
Well, this must mean, if you're going to be consistent that is...yeah, I know I'm a patient one to actually wait for that...that you must believe that the Mountain Meadow Massacre of 9/11/1857 done by Mormons was "done in conjunction" with their religion.
I mean, there's been a fair number of 9/11 threads going back to 2003 on FR. Did you object to any references of the murderers as "Mormons?" (Yes? No?)
BUT. If you don't think those murders were "done in conjunction" with the Mormon religion, then you lamed out on my part of my post #25, which I'll repeat & keep repeating as an encouragement for you to address:
I said: Some people claim the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 had NOTHING to do with the Mormon religion. So should all references to "Mormon" regarding on that matter be stricken from the record?
Are you going to take your white-out and wipe out all references to "Mormon" from all history books about that massacre because of your obsessive need to protect Mormons? If not, why not?
Are you going to go on your castigating crusade and question all historians who have mentioned "Mormons" in conjunction with the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Yes? No? You refuse to answer these questions on the ground that it might incriminate your two-faced approach to things? If not, why not?
Where's your crusade consistency? If you're going all out to de-link Mormons from any same-sentence tie-in to murders, then have at it! Get busy! There are a LOT of articles, books, online content that mentions a LOT of Mormon-based crime! Since you are so 100% sure-- like omni-science sure -- that ALL of that crime has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Mormon faith, and if you are so SECURE in that position, by all means...please explain how much other work you've done to erase all that supposed "nonsense" by writers & historians & journalists who have the audacity to go against Raider Sam's all-knowing will that Mormonism should be censored out of all that content!
So..next post...which position are you going to take:
Are you going to accuse the Mountain Meadow massacre murderers of murdering in conjunction with the Mormon religion?...
Or (2)...are you going get busy and try your hand at censoring all those books, articles, and online content about the MMM...eliminating any & all references to "Mormon?"
(Your choice...of course...there's not always just two choices...the third choice of yours is simply to duly earn candidacy dishonors in running for the 2011 FReeper Hypocrite of the Year!)
Yeah, it was done in conjunction with religion, so the media should have been all over when it happened, if they were not. You’re point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.