Topic: Gribble Trial Analysis

 Christopher Gribble Trial Analysis Forum(03/28/2011) 
3:16
 

 
2:28
Phil Kincade / Telegraph : 
Once again thanks to our three Nashua lawyers for taking the time this afternoon to share their opinions:

Roger “Rusty” Chadwick, Kent Barker and Chuck Keefe

Monday March 28, 2011 2:28 Phil Kincade / Telegraph
2:04
Joe Cote / Telegraph staff: 
Thanks. Bye.
Monday March 28, 2011 2:04 Joe Cote / Telegraph staff
2:02
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
Indeed, thanks everyone
Dean
Monday March 28, 2011 2:02 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
2:01
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Thanks to everyone for participating. You can read about this forum in tomorrow's Telegraph.
Monday March 28, 2011 2:01 Jonathan Van Fleet
2:00
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Spader likes attention. You may have noticed the courthouse was shut down due to an inmate in the state prison sending a letter with fake anthrax in it. Law enforcement hasn't identified the inmate, but there would be no surprises if it came from Spader.
Given that, we'd consider it very carefully before we granted him an interview. Would it be news if he took responsibility for the crime and apologized to the Cates family and the community for the harm he caused? Yes, that would be newsworthy. It's also unlikely.
Monday March 28, 2011 2:00 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:59
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
In reference to the Zantop murders, the best account of that incident is Dick Lehr's "Judgment Ridge: The True Story Behind the Dartmouth Murders." Well-researched and presented.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:59 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:58
Joe Cote / Telegraph staff: 
Brian - Robert Tulloch is in the Northern NH Correctional Facility. James Parker is in NH State Prison for men, according to the state DOC's Inmate Locator.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:58 Joe Cote / Telegraph staff
1:57
[Comment From JeffJeff: ] 
Given Spader's letters to your paper, what do you think the likelihood of him granting a media interview is?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:57 Jeff
1:56
[Comment From BrianBrian: ] 
The Hanover killers are in Berlin and Concord (not sure which is where)
Monday March 28, 2011 1:56 Brian
1:55
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
Jim--In short, not appreciably. They do have one more part time officer than they did in October 2009, but despite Chief Kyle Aspinwall's efforts going into the 2010-11 budget season, town taxpayers declined to appropriate funds for a full time position to cover the overnight. shift.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:55 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:53
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
In 2001, Half and Suzanne Zantop were killed during a random home invasion by James J. Parker and Robert W. Tulloch, who were 16 and 17 at the time. Both are housed at the state prison in Concord and to my knowledge have not granted media interviews.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:53 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:52
[Comment From JimJim: ] 
Since this crime, has Mont Vernon improved their police presence to 24/7? They had stopped patrols past 9pm.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:52 Jim
1:51
Joe Cote / Telegraph staff: 
Luke - Gribble's attorneys are New Hampshire Public Defenders. Spader's attorneys are private attorneys but were appointed by the state. As it was explained to me, Spader had outside attorneys appointed because it would have been a conflict of interest for the public defenders to represent both him and Gribble. So, the short answers is, we all paid for the defense.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:51 Joe Cote / Telegraph staff
1:49
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
As an indirect but related answer to Luke's first comment, an earlier poster named Jack asked if Gribble or Spader might ever tell their whole stories now that the trials are over.
My response is that the ball is in their court—if either were to reach out to us reporters requesting a jailhouse interview, we’d surely pursue it. State Prison and DOC officials, of course, would have to approve such an interview, given the fact both Gribble and Spader are in the maximum security unit.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:49 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:49
[Comment From LukeLuke: ] 
Who paid for Spader and Gribble's defense? Parents?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:49 Luke
1:48
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
There are many unanswered questions about this case, which the Telegraph will attempt to answer in the future.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:48 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:46
[Comment From LukeLuke: ] 
Hope the Telegraph will take those question unanswered and do more articles on this case and Spader's as there are many things we still would like to know
Monday March 28, 2011 1:46 Luke
1:46
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
Jack: The issue wasn’t addressed directly at either trial, but indications are there were no firearms in the house.
Given how the crime went down, the presence of a firearm probably wouldn’t have made any difference; Kimberly Cates was ambushed the moment she woke up.
It’s not known whether David Cates has acquired a firearm since the crime, but what is known is David and Jaimie are now the proud owners of a formidable, and fine-looking, German shepherd.

Monday March 28, 2011 1:46 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:45
[Comment From JackJack: ] 
At the time of the crime, did it ever come out that the Cates owned any firearms?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:45 Jack
1:44
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Excellent. Thank you everyone. We are well past our 30 minute time. Thank you to our three legal experts for agreeing to participate.

Joe Cote and Dean Shalhoup will attempt to answer some more questions until 2 p.m.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:44 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:44
Kent Barker: 
Thanks to the Telegraph for asking me to participate. Have a great day.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:44 Kent Barker
1:43
Chuck Keefe: 
Have a good day, everyone. Thank you.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:43 Chuck Keefe
1:42
Kent Barker: 
Jon; I was afraid you would ask this question. I believe that every person gets a defense. I also believe that no lawyer should take a case he or she can not do their best work in. I was asked early on by a member of my family if I would take it. I said no. It is a personal choice and I know I could not have done my best. If there was no one competent to do the case, I would have had to rethink it, but that was not the case here.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:42 Kent Barker
1:42
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Gentlemen- Thank you very much. Great talking. Willing to do this again but must make may next appointment. Take care.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:42 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:42
Chuck Keefe: 
Whether to take on a client involves a lot of different considerations. Sometimes a lawyer will consider the kind of case it is and other related factors. Each is a case-by-case decision, and I would need to know a lot more information before answering that question.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:42 Chuck Keefe
1:40
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
No. But I wouldn't be disappointed if I did not recieve the call!
Monday March 28, 2011 1:40 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:40
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
Rusty--precisely the point I was illustrating: No matter what the circumstances, we can never "cut to the chase," as i put it, lest we sink to the so-called "legal system" in some nations far away.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:40 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:39
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Rusty, Kent, Chuck,
Will you ever reject a client? Specifically, would you have agreed to represent Spader or Gribble or turned away the case?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:39 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:39
Kent Barker: 
The test is this: what due process would you want available to you if you were the one on trial?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:39 Kent Barker
1:38
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Defense lawyers are often seen as slimy when they represent defendants like these yet the same lawyers are heroes in less infamous cases. Human nature.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:38 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:37
Kent Barker: 
George: I was told very early in my career that my job was simply to see that EVERY defendant I represented got a fair trial. We all deserve that under the Constitution. He was making an argument. He was not lying. I admire the way both defense counsel fought hard for a client who was hery hard to like and unpopular to represent.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:37 Kent Barker
1:37
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
What do you mean by cutting to the chase? And would you be asking that if it were someone you love on trial?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:37 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:37
Chuck Keefe: 
George, our criminal justice system is so great because it is made to be incredibly hard to take away a person's freedom. It is a defense attorney's ethical obligation in that instance to make it as hard as possible for the jury to find him guilty. That is how we, as a society, can feel comfortable that only guilty people are convicted. Rusty is exactly right as well. Whether it's a driving offense or a murder, the system needs a defense attorney to stand up and argue against the State.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:37 Chuck Keefe
1:36
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
George is by no means alone--not a soul I spoke to about either trial could bring themselves to say what they probably would have said six months before the trials: That no matter how heinous the crime or the actor, everyone has the right to a vigorous defense in this country. It almost makes the most down-to-earth and thoughtful among us wonder if it might have been a bit easier and less stressful to just cut to the chase in these cases.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:36 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:36
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
I dont' blame George for those thoughts. Many people have them...then, someone they know is arrested and they have very different thoughts about defense lawyers and the need for someone to stand up to the State and say "not guilty". Chuck and I have both recently switched sides and view some of these things a little differently now. Right Chuck?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:36 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:34
Kent Barker: 
This case cast a pall over all of us in the community. We had to wonder if any of us was safe. Seeing them get a fair trial and then get the punishment they deserve is, in a way, healing. I recall the courage of Jamie and her Dad, the heroism of Sgt Furlong doing his duty with a seperated shoulder, not the horror of the crime. Perhaps we all can move on after this?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:34 Kent Barker
1:34
Chuck Keefe: 
Rusty is right. My law partner obtained a not-guilty verdict in a very long case (it went as long as the Gribble trial). On the way out of the courthouse, several of the jurors came over to him and his wife and said they were sorry that they had to go through the trial and everything related to it.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:34 Chuck Keefe
1:33
[Comment From GeorgeGeorge: ] 
I still grind my teeth when I think of Spader's attorney saying that "It just doesn't add up" when it clearly did. I'm left with the thought that he knew his client was guilty but tried to pursuade the jury otherwise. Any ethics here?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:33 George
1:33
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
George asks another good question.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:33 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:32
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Jury foreman was 50-year-old Barry Gifford of Bedford
Monday March 28, 2011 1:32 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:31
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
I think each of us has also seen the opposite: jurors glad to say "not guilty". That is the beauty of the system.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:31 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:30
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
I also think the nature of this crime, and its absence of a real, solid motive, drew so much utter contempt for these guys, especially Spader and Gribble, it was the proverbial sinking boat going in.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:30 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:30
Chuck Keefe: 
I think the ability to say "guilty" is the biggest catharsis for a juror after suffering through that kind of evidence.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:30 Chuck Keefe
1:30
Kent Barker: 
Response to Joe Cote: I was at the Court on other business and sat in on the verdict. I was struck by how the foreman made absolutely sure Gribble saw him deliver the verdict. I got the sense he felt he was speaking for all of NH and not just that jury.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:30 Kent Barker
1:29
Joe Cote / Telegraph staff: 
Chuck - The chorus of "guilty" when the Spader jury was polled had a lot of emotion from some of the jurors.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:29 Joe Cote / Telegraph staff
1:29
Chuck Keefe: 
To follow-up on what Rusty said of the burden, I know that jurors in murder cases often have forms of PTSD that include nightmares. It is awful.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:29 Chuck Keefe
1:28
Chuck Keefe: 
Joe, that's somewhat common in murder cases. I had several verdicts where the entire jury stared at the defendant when they found him guilty, and then again as each one of them asked to give an individual answer of "guilty."
Monday March 28, 2011 1:28 Chuck Keefe
1:28
Kent Barker: 
The lawyers, no matter how skilled, can not change the facts. Clarence Darrow represented Leopold and Loeb (a case similar to this one in some respects) and recognized the futility of a trial. He had them plead guilty to avoid the death penalty.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:28 Kent Barker
1:28
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Can you imagine sitting through that trial day after day? What a burden for all involved.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:28 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:28
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Would a defense attorney ever coach a client on how to behave on the witness stand? "Chris, pretend you are swatting at flying insects when you are answering questions."
Monday March 28, 2011 1:28 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:27
Joe Cote / Telegraph staff: 
The jury foreman seemed to almost relish reading the jury's verdict. He paused after the court clerk's questions, looked over the Gribble and told him he was guilty.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:27 Joe Cote / Telegraph staff
1:27
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
Pam--I agree totally. As long a shot as it was, the insanity defense was actually a better shot than a non-insanity defense, in my opinion
Monday March 28, 2011 1:27 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:27
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Pam, this is my point about the facts limiting what either side, prosecution or the defense, may do in court. It does seem highly unlikely that any defense would have worked.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:27 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:26
Chuck Keefe: 
Pam, I agree. The crime was so heinous that any jury would have been waiting to convict him. Gribble's defense attorneys had an impossible task before them, and they did all they could. But I don't think any amount of lawyering or expert testimony would have changed the verdict.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:26 Chuck Keefe
1:26
Kent Barker: 
Pam; No argument here.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:26 Kent Barker
1:25
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
I wonder how we might view all of Gribble's statements if he appeared in court looking and acting completely demented?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:25 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:25
[Comment From PamPam: ] 
I believe Gribble would have been found guilty regardless of the defense approach taken. Agree?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:25 Pam
1:25
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Here's one from Pam.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:25 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:25
Kent Barker: 
Jack. I thought Gribble was absolutely influenced by the Spader trial going first. He saw what did not work and, I assume, the anger generated by the display of the detailed evidence.

Wellington was the General who defeated Napolen at Waterloo, Rusty.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:25 Kent Barker
1:24
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
What other co-defendants do is often irrelevant but yet instructional.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:24 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:23
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Regarding the first in line defense, you must realize that each defense team does not simply chose its own strategy...the facts are there and we work with the facts.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:23 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:23
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
Jack--to me, that's a fair assumption; his lawyers surely realized he had no chance at all of acquittal had they gone the "traditional" route.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:23 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:23
Chuck Keefe: 
Jack raises a very good tactical issue, and this comment has been made by many defense attorneys in the last few months. Gribble had a preview of what was going to happen if he didn't plead insanity, and so one might think that his only hope or chance was to plead insanity.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:23 Chuck Keefe
1:22
Kent Barker: 
Perhaps the better use of the concept is RSA135:17 that has to do with competency to stand trial. Some one mentally compromised enough to be able to claim the insanity defense is likely, it follows, to be incompetent to stand trial. I have used that avenue successfully in the past when it was appropriate.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:22 Kent Barker
1:21
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Kent, who is Wellington? Seriously though, we see this very idea in cases in which complete strangers are murdered, think Gary Sampson, and in thrill kills like Gribble and Spader, and in domestic cases.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:21 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:21
[Comment From JackJack: ] 
Do you think Gribble would have gone for insanity defense had his trial been first? In other words, do you think he chose to use that defense because he saw Spader was convicted and he figured he had no chance to get off?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:21 Jack
1:21
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Jack poses an interesting question, about the best way to defend Gribble, given Spader had already been convicted.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:21 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:20
Chuck Keefe: 
The system seems entirely fair to me in this way, having seen it from both sides of the aisle. Experts can guide us, but our justice system requires that we be judged by our "peers." Experts can guide and advise, but we take all that information we hear in trial, as well as our common experiences, and make a judgment. It's an awful position to be in sometimes, but it is the cornerstone of our justice system.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:20 Chuck Keefe
1:19
Kent Barker: 
The example I like to use is the hypothetical of the person who thinks he is Napoleon and kills a person he thinks is Wellington and is out to kill him. He is so disassociated with reality that he can not form a criminal intent. In this case, there was no such indication of disassociation, just narcissism and self centeredness.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:19 Kent Barker
1:19
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Chuck, you are absolutely right. And Kent, LaBarre certainly seemed to be a Masonesque...but no dice, as far as the insanity defense goes. What does that mean for future of this defense?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:19 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:17
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
That is precisely what makes this country great. We all make judgments every day and our human experiences are precisely what qualifies us to be jurors. Experts are only aids. Would you want your fate to be decided only by an expert?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:17 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:16
Chuck Keefe: 
Joe, having studied the insanity defense when I was with the AG's Office, I often wondered if juries just don't want to believe that kind of insanity can exist.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:16 Chuck Keefe
1:16
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
Joe's comment goes to what Rusty told me in an earlier interview--Indeed, people, and that includes juries, have become quite skeptical of the insanity defense in the past generation--seeing it as a cop out and attempt to not take responsibility for crimes.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:16 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:16
Kent Barker: 
The whole reason for the insanity defense is to provide for a defense where the defendant is incapable of forming a criminal intent. Those situations are rare.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:16 Kent Barker
1:16
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
I believe that Charles Manson has become the informal standard for what the public expects an insane person to do or say. If a jury does not see a "Manson-like" figure who is still drooling and spitting in court, then they are skeptical.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:16 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:16
[Comment From GeorgeGeorge: ] 
What really seemed insane to me was that a jury of laymen were asked to determine if the defendant was insane. Does this system seem fair or appropriate to you?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:16 George
1:16
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Here's a question from George.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:16 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:14
Joe Cote / Telegraph staff: 
It's interesting to me that as wide open as the definition of insanity is in New Hampshire - giving free reign to the jury - it's proven historically almost impossible to successfully employ as a defense.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:14 Joe Cote / Telegraph staff
1:13
Kent Barker: 
Chuck makes a good point. Sheila Lebarre was probably the closest fact pattern to the prototype insanity defense that we have seen in NH for a while. Some of the facts were out there. But remember that the test is whether the defendant had a mental condition and whether that condition casued them to commit the crime. The jury in Lebarre found that, even with evidence of mental illness, it did not casue her to murder.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:13 Kent Barker
1:13
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
My experience comes from the Pamela Smart case. Some of the co-defendants in that case have been released early but they had very lengthy sentences and were very young at the time of the offense.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:13 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:13
Chuck Keefe: 
Dean is correct about the prison terms. If they behave, and complete all the necessary requirements, they will be eligible for parole at the expiration of their minimum dates.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:13 Chuck Keefe
1:12
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
Jen, I'd think it would depend on how they conduct themselves while incarcerated.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:12 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:12
Chuck Keefe: 
Jonathan, I don't think I agree with that statement. I understand how one might see that, but it doesn't relate to the insanity standard used in NH courts. That euphoria surely shows a sociopath, and possibly someone who is evil, but it doesn't readily relate to legal insanity.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:12 Chuck Keefe
1:11
[Comment From JenJen: ] 
Do you think the codefendants (Glover and Marks) will serve the full term of their sentence or is it more likely they will be released soon after they have served the minimum years?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:11 Jen
1:11
Dean Shalhoup/Columnist: 
To me, "legally insane" would define someone like the Arizona shooter, or a Charles Manson type character.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:11 Dean Shalhoup/Columnist
1:11
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Now we'll take a question from another reader, Jen.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:11 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:10
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
I wonder what type of demeanor an accused would have to portray on the stand and in court to have a chance with the insanity defense. We all have certain preconceived ideas about what an insane person would do or say.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:10 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:10
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Several readers have commented that Spader, and his euphoria after the murder, seemed more insane than Gribble. Agree or disagree?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:10 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:10
Kent Barker: 
It was strictly a tactical decision by the Defendant and his lawyers. There may have been enough evidence of a mental defect or conditon in his past to mount one but they decided that the chances, slim they may have been, of succeeding at trial without the limitations of the insanity defense were better.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:10 Kent Barker
1:10
Chuck Keefe: 
Mary, it is hard to know why a client and his counsel pursue a certain defense. First, a defense attorney must have a good faith basis to raise a certain defense. And Rusty hit the nail on the head from a tactical point of view - pleading insanity is almost impossible to successfully prove.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:10 Chuck Keefe
1:09
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Insanity is an extremely difficult defense. It is rarely successful. Probably because there were several high profile cases in the 70's that caused much of the public to be immediately skeptical with the idea.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:09 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:07
[Comment From MaryMary: ] 
Why didn't Spader claim insanity like Gribble did?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:07 Mary
1:07
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Now we'll take a question from Mary, one of our readers.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:07 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:07
Chuck Keefe: 
Joe, it may have played a small role. As a defense attorney in that case, I would know that the jury wanted to hear and see the defendant to get their own sense of him. If it was strictly a battle of experts, the heinous nature of the crime would have left the jury with no choice but to convict him.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:07 Chuck Keefe
1:06
Kent Barker: 
Not having seen the exhanges on cross, it is hard to say. Sanity has to do with an individual's ability to understand their surrounding and undertand times and places. It appears his testimony did the opposite.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:06 Kent Barker
1:05
Joe Cote / Telegraph staff: 
Chuck, do you think the fact that the defense didn't have a forensic psychiatry expert to call played into the decision to have Gribble take the stand?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:05 Joe Cote / Telegraph staff
1:04
Chuck Keefe: 
Gribble's testimony sealed his fate with the jury. He came across as a monster. More than that, his testimony that he wanted to attack his mother while she testified but was able to control himself showed the jury that his actions weren't the product of mental disease or defect. That being said, to have any hope of a successful verdict, the jury needed to hear from him.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:04 Chuck Keefe
1:04
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Several times Gribble appeared to be sparring with prosecutor Jeff Strelzin. Did this make him appear more or less sane?
Monday March 28, 2011 1:04 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:03
Roger "Rusty" Chadwick: 
Many people are perplexed that Spader and Gribble were not given the death penalty but their crimes, no matter how horrible, do not qualify under current NH law. So, yes, there is certainly an ongoing debate revolving around the "if not them, then who?"
Monday March 28, 2011 1:03 Roger "Rusty" Chadwick
1:03
Kent Barker: 
It seemed to me that the insanity defense was a long shot from the beginning. It could be that the defense team felt they had little to lose.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:03 Kent Barker
1:02
Chuck Keefe: 
Good afternoon. Chuck Keefe here logged on.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:02 Chuck Keefe
1:02
Kent Barker: 
It is difficult to second guess another lawyer's advice at trial. It is also, ultimately, the defendant's decision whether to testify.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:02 Kent Barker
1:00
Jonathan Van Fleet: 
Hi everyone.
Welcome to The Telegraph's online forum on the Christopher Gribble trial.
Gribble spent 11 hours on the stand, talking about his anger from his childhood and also about his actions leading up to and during the murder.
What impact do you think that testimony had on his case?
Do you agree with the decision to put him on the stand?"
Monday March 28, 2011 1:00 Jonathan Van Fleet
1:00
Kent Barker: 
Hello. Kent Barker here logging on.
Monday March 28, 2011 1:00 Kent Barker
11:43
Phil Kincade / Telegraph : 
Thanks for the questions submitted so far. We're on schedule to start the discussion a 1 p.m.
Monday March 28, 2011 11:43 Phil Kincade / Telegraph
9:37
Phil Kincade / Telegraph : 
Three Nashua attorneys who have argued criminal cases from both sides of the courtroom will share their opinions and answer questions about the Christopher Gribble trial here beginning at 1 p.m. today.

Joining a Telegraph editor and reporters online will be defense lawyers Roger “Rusty” Chadwick, Kent Barker and Chuck Keefe, each of whom worked as an assistant county or state attorney at some point in his career.

Telegraph representatives will begin by asking questions of the lawyers. Readers can submit questions at any point during the forum by using the text submission box below. Type in your name, ask a question or offer a comment and then click the "send' button.

The forum is expected is expected to last about a half hour. Ask your question now if you like and we'll save it for when the forum starts.
Monday March 28, 2011 9:37 Phil Kincade / Telegraph
 
 










ClassifiedsNH.com
JOBS | HOMES | AUTOS
Top Jobs
More Top Jobs »

Top Properties
place an ad


back to top