Hostage Gave Meth to Atlanta Fugitive

Associated Press ^ | September 27,2005 | GREG BLUESTEIN

[Stone Mountain]

Hostage Gave Meth to Atlanta Fugitive

By GREG BLUESTEIN Associated Press Writer

September 27,2005 | ATLANTA -- The woman who says she gained the trust of suspected courthouse gunman Brian Nichols by talking about her faith in God discloses in a new book that she gave him methamphetamine during the hostage ordeal.

Ashley Smith did not share that detail with authorities after she talked her way out of captivity.

In her book, "Unlikely Angel," released Tuesday, Smith says Nichols had her bound on her bed with masking tape and an extension cord. She says he asked for marijuana, but she did not have any, and dug into her crystal methamphetamine stash instead.

Smith, who has been in a mental hospital and has flunked out of drug rehabilitation programs, says the seven-hour hostage ordeal led her to stop using drugs. She says she has not touched drugs since the night before she was taken hostage.

"If I did die, I wasn't going to heaven and say, `Oh, excuse me, God. Let me wipe my nose, because I just did some drugs before I got here,'" Smith told the Augusta Chronicle.

Police said Nichols took Smith hostage in her apartment March 11 after a shooting rampage at the Fulton County Courthouse. Nichols is accused of killing four people, including a judge.

Smith's 911 call to police when she was released led authorities to Nichols. She said she read him passages from author Rick Warren's "The Purpose-Driven Life" to gain his trust.

She was later bombarded with offers for books, movies and speaking engagements.

Financial details of the book have not been released, but she pledged to donate an undisclosed portion of the book's proceeds to a memorial fund for the victims.

© 2005 The Associated Press.

[Centurion2000]

Good Lord, now we know where Tolkien got his inspiration for orcs and goblins. He knew meth users.

[TKDietz]

She didn't say she gave up meth the night before. She said she hadn't done it since the night before. I drank two beers after work last night. Can you infer from the fact that I haven't had any beer this morning that I quit last night? Of course not. Also, she didn't mention shooting anything up. In fact, she said, "If I did die, I wasn't going to heaven and say, `Oh, excuse me, God. Let me wipe my nose, because I just did some drugs before I got here...'" Sounds to me like she is saying she snorted the stuff. She may be lying about quitting and may actually shoot the stuff up constantly, but it is unreasonable to infer that from her quotes in this article.

[TKDietz]

"The bigger scandal here may be that the Atlanta police almost certainly would have known pretty quick she gave him meth after drug testing him and interrogating both of them."

Why are you so sure that they would have known that? Maybe they do things differently in Atlanta but I've never heard of anywhere with a policy where they drug test all fugitives after they are captured. Few jails drug test people when they are booked in. Those that do generally do it as part of a study and in those cases inmates generally have a right to refuse the tests because the Constitution protects people against self incrimination. The rules may be different for inmates serving sentences in the jail who may be required to submit to drug testing while in the jail, but I don't know of any jails where everyone booked in must pee in cup or give blood. There certainly are none like that in my state.

Apparently she didn't tell the police about it. The fugitive wouldn't have any reason to tell tell on her for giving him meth. He was already in enough trouble and he didn't have any reason to try to get this lady in trouble. Apparently he liked her.

[TKDietz]

"As I recall, when he got to prison he became a Muslim."

"As I recall, the only reason for "conversion" is the errant belief that it may somehow complicate their execution."

I don't know why this guy did it. but converting to Islam is pretty common for blacks in prison. Mostly the reason they do it I think is for protection. People join racist groups and gangs for the same reason. Being part of a large group offers protection, something people feel the need for in a place where rape, extortion, and violent assaults are common.

I don't question the need to put violent offenders, sex offenders, career thieves and the like in prison, but it's not a place that's going to make these people better people. It's just going to keep them off the streets and away from the rest of us for a while. They probably come out worse than when they went in. It's probably not a good thing though that we have more people in prison than any other country in the world, including places like Russia or China. Aside from costing us a fortune we're probably just training a lot of folks to be far worse criminals than they were before they went in. If it were up to me we'd put less people in to begin with but keep the really bad guys in a lot longer.

[TKDietz]

Maybe she gave it to him because she was scared and thought that giving him whatever he wanted might increase her chances for survival. He wanted pot but all she had was meth so she offered him that instead. She probably wasn't thinking about it making him more of a crazy man, she probably was just trying to get on his good side as much as possible. I imagine I'd do the same thing, although I wouldn't have any meth to offer him. There are probably some old pain killers in the medicine cabinet. I'd have told him to help himself if I thought it might buy me some time and put him in a position where he felt like he owed me a favor.

[Black Tooth]

Really? What makes you think that? I've never heard of fugitives being drug tested upon being placed back in custody.

Uh, they do that with escapee's, parolees etc so they can pile on more charges if they turn positive. Hello? Not only that, the defense attorneys usually demand it an attempt to use it as a defense. "Oh, my client was on drugs, he didn't know what he was doing" bla bla, etc etc. Of course they test them when they go back into custody.

Of course the may not where you live. LOL..

[TKDietz]

That's a bunch of bull. On the one hand you say that they do this to escapees so they can pile on more charges, and then you say that defense attorneys demand it so they can use it as a defense. That's silly. Why would defense attorneys demand something that is going to get their clients in more trouble? And what charge would the state put on an escapee if he tested positive? They won't make a possession charge stick unless he is in possession of drugs and they couldn't make some piddly misdemeanor public intoxication charge stick unless there is evidence of intoxication. A positive drug test does not prove intoxication without some evidence of impairment because drugs show up in people's system long after they wear off. And even if they could make a charge like that stick it wouldn't be worth it, especially for a guy going away as long as this guy is. And as for attorneys wanting to use intoxication as a defense, being high is no defense unless someone spiked your drink or something without you knowing about it, and even if that is believed it's still not a great defense. In most cases though the fact that a defendant was on illegal drugs is a real liability for him both in the guilt phase and sentencing phase of a trial.

I am a criminal defense attorney. I don't know how things work everywhere but nothing I have ever seen would lead me to believe this escapee would be drug tested right after he turned himself in. I wouldn't believe that unless I saw proof that it was done or at least proof that that would be standard practice in the jurisdiction where this man escaped and turned himself in. Without that, my educated guess is that it is highly unlikely that this man was drug tested right after he was placed back into custody.

By the way, we're talking apples and oranges when we compare parolees to escapees. Parolees can be drug tested at any time basically, and often are, but that is irrelevant in this debate. This guy was certainly no parolee.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Marko413]

"Will 1/2 cc of insulin harm a non-diabetic?"

For type 2 diabetics, it may not do much because they lack the ability to correctly process the insulin. Whereas type 1 diabetics lack the ability to produce the insulin.

For everyone else, you need a certain amount of unprocessed sugar in your blood stream (glucose levels, 90-100 is normal). If you were to suddenly introduce a large amount of insulin into your blood stream, your blood-sugar level would drop faster than your body could keep up with since it wasn't the one providing the insulin. For some insulins, the person affected would start to feel a little tingly after 15 minutes. Then after about 30-60 minutes, it is possible they could pass out unless they got some sugar into their blood stream (i.e. cramming a couple twinkies). Though usually the fastest way to raise your blood sugar level is with something liquid (i.e. fruit juice).

[Black Tooth]

Really? What makes you think that? I've never heard of fugitives being drug tested upon being placed back in custody.

Uh, they do that with escapee's, parolees etc so they can pile on more charges if they turn positive. Hello? Not only that, the defense attorneys usually demand it an attempt to use it as a defense. "Oh, my client was on drugs, he didn't know what he was doing" bla bla, etc etc. Of course they test them when they go back into custody.

Of course the may not where you live. LOL..

That's a bunch of bull. On the one hand you say that they do this to escapees so they can pile on more charges, and then you say that defense attorneys demand it so they can use it as a defense.

No, that's not what I said. I said in *addition* to being tested once back in custody, if the criminal committed more crimes when he was on the streets, a defense attorney may want to know if he was on drugs, as it could possibly be used as a defense for his client.

Your a defense attorney? LOL. Would you rather defend your client being under the influence and committing a crime or if he were stone sober and knew exactly what he was doing when the crime was committed?

Being under the influence can be used as an excuse to an *extent*. You don't know this? It's happened a million times in an *attempt* to reduce penalties. How would a juror look at a defendent that robbed a store and punched his wife when he was drunk or on drugs, as opposed to a defendent that did the same thing while completely stone sober. Hello? It matters.

That's silly.

Your silly.

Why would defense attorneys demand something that is going to get their clients in more trouble?

Well, uh, er...Again, would you rather defend someone that was stone sober when they committed a serious crime, or someone who may have been under the influence, that could possible be used as a defense for the defendant, and possible reduce penalties?

And what charge would the state put on an escapee if he tested positive?

Ah, just a wild guess, but I would say, under the influence of illegal drugs. Most felons and inmates are forbidden to use illegal drugs while in prison, and after release/parole . Hello?

They won't make a possession charge stick unless he is in possession of drugs.

Who said anything about possession??

People get busted all the time for being under the influence of illegal substances, and they are not in possession of anything. Hello?

LOL!

Remind me to never use you as a defense attorney. You ought to get into another field.

[TKDietz]

Your understanding of the system is lacking. I think you must watch too much TV. I know what I know from handling thousands of criminal cases over the years. It's not worth it for me to waste my time arguing with some guy who has no idea what he is talking about.

"Remind me to never use you as a defense attorney."

Okay, never use me as a defense attorney.

"You ought to get into another field."

Maybe you ought to become an attorney, seeing as how you think you already know everything there is to know. Those of us who really do know what we are doing like it when we run into people like you in the courtroom.

[Black Tooth]

Nope, sorry. What I said is correct, and used by defense attorney *all* the time, in attempts to defend their clients. This is nothing. Some of the defenses I have heard make this look totally legitimate. Ever hear of the the "twinky" defense for example? I could go on. You clearly don't get out much.

A defense attorney is suppose to defend his client by every means possible. You obviously are lacking in this field. And I noted you couldn't and didn't refute anything that was said other than "I think you must watch too much TV".

LOL!

[TKDietz]

There is no point in arguing with someone who is incapable of understanding what you are saying. I'm done with you. Go be blissful in your ignorance.

[Black Tooth]

no point in arguing

You have no argument Mr. Defense Attorney as it's clear you couldn't and you declined to refute anything thing said.

Your a defense attorney that has never heard of using the fact that when a client commits a crime and was possibly intoxicated, that may possibly be used as a defense in an attempt to limit the damage to his client? HA!

Reminds me a the case where this guy lost his new wife in an auto collision...Two days after her funeral he gets drunk and punches out his neighbor. The jury was totally sympathetic due to the fact that he was distraught, and *drunk* and he received a very light sentence. This is what the jurors said after being interviewed.

I rest my case.

[Chieftain]

The country swooned over this feel-good tale of beauty and the beast with some tent-revival thrown in. Took the attention away from the total breakdown of law enforcement and governmental authority that directly led to 4 murders.

You got that right, and many FReepers bought the whole pretty story, it was just irresistible - NOT!

You and I and a few others threw the BS flag from the beginning and caught holy hell from the "Saint Ashley" crowd. Ashley is a useful idiot for Rick Warren, just as Cindy Al Sheehani is for CodePinko/MoveOn.

[Black Tooth]

She was just a druggie. When the suspect found out she had the dope, all of a sudden he's mr. nice guy to ms. druggie, while getting a good buzz.

LOL.

[TKDietz]

Okay, maybe I was a little hard on you. It's just frustrating to me when I see people making generalizations about lawyers and what we do, or making baseless wild guess assumptions about what must have happened in cases they know nothing about. You started out on post #37 making some baseless wild guess that police knew all along this lady gave this guy meth because he simply must have been drug tested first thing when he was placed back in custody, and that he must have told police where he got the meth he tested positive for. All of that was just a wild guess with no real basis in fact. You don't know that any of this happened. You just think they always drug test escapees when they catch up to them. You list various reasons for why you think it always happens. But you are not a lawyer, or a jailer, or anyone else in a position to know what the standard procedure is in these situations. What you are doing is making wild guesses.

Have I ever heard of intoxication defenses? Of course I have. Have I ever heard of using intoxication or addiction as a mitigating factor? Absolutely, I've used these mitigating factors both in plea negotiations and in trials. But why would I want to waste time getting into some deep argument with you over all of this silly stuff when it really has little to do with whether police knew that this hostage gave her captor meth or not? None of this other crap really matters. Would either of us benefit from me writing out all I know about using intoxication or addiction as a defense or a mitigating factor? I don't want to waste my time arguing with you over all that. I don't dispute that intoxication can be used as a defense or a mitigating factor. I just don't see how you can get from there to here: "LOL... One of the first things they'd do when this murderer was back in custody would be to drug test him." "...no doubt he told them where he got it." "They knew."

This is a silly argument we are having. If you have any proof that the guy was drug tested when they got him back in custody, present it. I'll gladly concede defeat. If you can't find any proof that he was drug tested, you are free to go on believing that he must have been just because your guesses are always right, and I'll go on believing that it is unlikely that he was drug tested because my experiences lead me to doubt that he was. None of this is worth either of us wasting a second more arguing over silly side issues.

[Black Tooth]

Have I ever heard of intoxication defenses? Of course I have. Have I ever heard of using intoxication or addiction as a mitigating factor? Absolutely, I've used these mitigating factors both in plea negotiations and in trials.

LOL. Hey, at least you admit it now. Or did a little reading up first. Anything and everything is used as a defense. I've heard it all. Being a defense attorney, you should have known this earlier.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Yes, but remember that Rahab was a harlot, and Matthew a tax collector.

[TKDietz]

Stop weaseling. Either you have proof that police knew right away that the lady gave her captor meth or you don't. Did they drug test him right away when they caught up with him? You don't know. You're just trying to change the subject because you know good and darned well you can't prove your little fantasy. Prove your baseless claim or shut up.