by Bradley Mason Hamlin » Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:20 pm
On the Beautiful Mind thing, this is frustrating to have to even waste time on, but it began with the first attorney who “volunteered” to help Richard. He is an attorney named Mark Bowman, friend of Richard and Susan’s. He spoke with Susan, decided he believed her “new” story, then decided to actively work against Richard—while acting as his attorney! On the phone he told Detective Strasser: “I’m going to do everything I can to keep Richard in jail.” Why is that, Mark? Should I say? <br><br>Bowman then goes on to invent the Beautiful Mind theory and this is where he really drops the ball. The film is about a schizophrenic math teacher seeing “codes” and having active hallucinations. It couldn’t be more painfully obvious that the man is mentally ill. If Richard were in fact schizo—perhaps one of two psychiatrists that examined him would have seen elements of that disease. They did not. Richard is defending his own case. Richard is not barking on about Satanists or anything else that sounds nutty. He is reciting what Susan herself said. Perhaps Susan is schizophrenic. The important thing is that Richard believed what Susan told him about her abuse and sought, perhaps obsessively, to find more information about her abuse. <br><br>When I met with the Richard’s second attorney Phil Cousins (sp) and investigator Frank Huntington—they told me they had decided (without medical examination) that Richard was a schizophrenic and that I should go see the film, a Beautiful Mind. Where did they get this info? Mark Bowman. Frank and Phil had boxes of Richard’s notes, his investigation into Susan’s past and the Siemer family—and they did not bother to read the notes. Instead, they chose to believe that there was nothing there because Richard was looking for a secret “code.” They also asked me not to tell Richard that they were going to go for an insanity defense. How the hell is that working in the best interest of their client? <br><br>So, tell me, is the prosecution secretly looking for an insanity excuse for the alleged crimes--or did they forget the “motive” was extortion?<br><br>I spoke with Richard just a few moments ago. He said he will answer any question put to him. The accused deserve to be heard in this country. If you’re going to make an accusation, make it, then let Richard tell his side of it.<br><br>I have avoided this far, dragging other people into the mud. But if so called “witnesses” are going to play games with cowardly, blind, attacks—I am going to start bringing to light just exactly why the “party goers” don’t want their names in the paper.<br><br>If dodgerfan has anything real to say, say it, or get lost. So far you have only served to work against Susan’s best interests. Did you know that Susan saw her doctor 31 times in 2002 and she never once showed any signs of abuse? What was she going to see the doctor about? Depression. Depression from a lifetime of incest/rape/abuse at the hands of her father--who by the way--is still M.I.A.<br> <p></p><i></i>