Arguments surrounding the Melchert-Dinkel trial may be lengthy but the underlining focus is the assignment of blame

Posted: February 28, 2011 in Crime & Punishment, Current News, Memorable Cases, Victims View
Tags: , , ,

The following are the official court documents with corresponding summarized positions by both the prosecution and the defense in the bench trial of Serial Suicide Killer William Melchert-Dinkel.

While you will not likely be inclined to review the documents in their entirety – especially the 100 page defense submission by Melchert-Dinkel lawyer Terry Watkins, the underlining focus is on assigning blame.

While Rice County prosecutor Paul Beaumaster clearly points to Melchert-Dinkel’s predatory pursuit of vulnerable victims in the suicide chat rooms of the virtual world in what by the defendant’s own admission was a “thrill of the chase” exercise to satisfy his macabre interest in suicides and hangings, the defense has taken the position that these people were lost causes in that they already had the inclination towards taking their lives.

While asking the judge to ignore the sleazily odoriferous dialogue perpetrated by Melchert-Dinkle during his exchanges with his victims, such as with Nadia Kajouji in which he posed as a young female nurse (a troubling issue that still bothers me in that had he thought what he was doing was right, why resort to subterfuge?), Watkins referenced the fact that Kajouji was bisexual, possibly pregnant and obviously troubled, as a means of lessening the impact of his client’s involvement. In short, and if you take the defense’s argument at face value, she was a suicide waiting to happen. Or to put it another way, Melchert-Dinkel’s actions had no bearing on the outcome in either the Kajouji or Drybrough suicides, or the purported suicides of at least three other people.

In contemplating his actions, I think that it is important at this point that we not forget about his interaction with minors such as the 16 year old girl from the Netherlands whom he encouraged to repeatedly cut herself while he watched via his webcam (PI News Special: Melchert-Dinkel Counseled and then Watched via Webcam as 16 Year Old Girl Cut Herself), as a means of illustrating just how far he was willing to go to satiate his sickening desires.

As indicated, the likelihood that most people who review either the prosecutor’s case or defense’s arguments in their entirety is understandably remote. However, and beyond the summary for each document that is provided below the corresponding SlideShare Viewers, I would suggest that what you do read are the online exchanges between Melchert-Dinkel and both Kajouji and Drybrough from the submission by the prosecutor, before you look at the defense’s provision of witness testimony as to the accusatory fragile state of the victims’ mindset.

While this case will inevitably be decided based on the interpretation of the law, and likely by the Appellate Court, I cannot help but think of the following analogy that if a person is walking precariously close to the edge of a cliff do you reach out to keep them from falling or, do you push them over the edge. Melchert-Dinkel chose the latter and did so for nothing more than perverse, self-serving gratification. While the legal liability of his actions are up for debate, I do not think that anyone would argue with the moral reprehensibility of his conduct.

Furthermore, and citing the following statement from Thomas Jefferson which has been attributed to the observation that “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” perhaps the courts should remember that the law is here to serve the people, versus the people serving the law:

“a strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

Melchert-Dinkel: Prosecution’s Case

Summary Conclusion Reference: Pages 21 – 22

 

G. Paul Beaumaster

Melchert-Dinkel: Defense’s Argument

Summary Conclusion Reference: Pages 5 – 6

 

Melchert-Dinkel Lawyer Terry Watkins

30

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s