RSS
Home
Op-Ed: A New Twinkie defense?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In New Jersey, a man accused of killing his former son-in-law was convicted of the crime, despite his defense's claim that he was "too fat" to kill anyone.
A ridiculous claim by his defense attorneys?
Yes, but not incredibly unusual. Stranger things have been claimed during trials.
Plenty of improbable defense claims have been offered over the years, perhaps the most famous being the "Twinkie defense ," a term coined back in the 1970's.
The Twinkie defense was coined after a San Francisco city supervisor, Dan White, murdered the city's mayor, George Moscone, and San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Harvey Milk, who had gained fame as the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California.
White claimed to not to be thinking clearly during the time of the assasinations, because he had been consuming sugary foods and drinks. He also said he had been suffering from depression.
The Twinkie defense was born, and White was found guilty of manslaughter. He later committed suicide, after being paroled, and received nothing but negative publicity following the murders.
The two defenses are highly outlandish and newsworthy. However, even a person not immediately familiar with the cases could draw their own conclusions and could see deeper issues within the accused.
White, for example, had had a falling-out with both the mayor and with Harvey Milk.
It only seems logical to assume that he wanted to avenge the factors which had caused him to eventually resign his post as a member of the Board of Supervisors.
The man in the "too fat to kill" case, Edward Ates, a resident of Florida, had driven all the way to New Jersey- apparently with the intent to kill.
Ates' daughter had been locked in a custody dispute with her ex-husband, whom Ates was convicted of killing. It only seems logical to assume that Ates, like any father, wanted his daughter's problems to go away and was even willing to kill for that to happen.
Both men were on trial for their lives so any defense, even the most unusual, would have to be used.
Two extremely illogical defenses were used, but logical conclusions can be still be made in both cases.
