No More Fake News Archives

NoMoreFakeNews Home Page

View Archive Article

Back to List

Title  PITTMAN ZOLOFT-MURDER CASE 
Release Date  2005-02-15 
Time  07:44:00 
Comment   

Article Text 
FEBRUARY 15, 2005. A jury in South Carolina begins its second day of deliberation in the Pittman-Zoloft-murder trial.

Below, I've reprinted an excerpt from a Charleston Herald story on the case.

Several points worth making...the standard which is being argued is, did the then-12-year-old know right from wrong at the time he killed two people from his own family?

But is this really the correct way to look at the case or any such case?

Can a chemical overwhelm a person while the person still has an INEFFECTUAL grasp on morality?

The prosecution argued that because it appeared there was planning on Pittman's part, because he carried out the killings with some malice aforethought, he must have known the difference between right and wrong, and therefore he is guilty of murder.

Assuming there was some degree of planning on Pittman's part, why should we assume this means he was not under the compelling influence of a drug, Zoloft?

One of the effects of these SSRI antidepressants is mania, a word that describes a situation in which a person can actually invent a grandiose scheme of criminal intent, replete with details.

In other words, these drugs don't necessarily impel a person forward to commit murder on the spur of the moment.

And the last point: if Pittman is on trial for his life, then why isn't Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft also on trial? How is it that Pittman faces life in prison while Pfizer can, at worst, be fined for selling a drug that can induce violence---suicide and homicide?

After all, one of the major criminal achievements of corporations, over a hundred-year period, was the eradication of their status as impersonal organizations under the direct controls of state legislatures. These corporations argued and bribed their way into recognition as INDIVIDUALS, with all the rights of individuals.

All right. If they're individuals, then they should be tried in court as individuals.

Pittman case wraps up dramatically Jurors begin debate on boy's future-----

By Jason Cato The Herald CHARLESTON -- As defense lawyers argued that children heavily influenced by antidepressants can't be held murderers, prosecutors in the Christopher Pittman double-murder trial called the defense's argument a "smokescreen."

Children "ambushed by chemicals" that destroy their ability to think cannot be murderers, attorney Paul Waldner told jurors Monday. But prosecutors reminded the jury to "keep their eye on the ball" as part of their closing argument.

"This is the Pittman case, the Joy and Joe Pittman case," deputy solicitor John Meadors said. "This is their day in court. ... The antidepressant is just a show."

Pittman is being tried as an adult for killing Joe Frank Pittman and Joy Roberts Pittman on Nov. 28, 2001, at their Chester County home. Police testified that the boy waited until the couple went to bed, loaded his pump-action shotgun and fired one shot into each of their heads. They said he then set the house on fire and loaded his grandfather's Nissan Pathfinder with weapons and his dog before fleeing 35 miles to Cherokee County. He was 12 at the time.

Now 15, he could be sentenced to between 30 years and life in prison if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict. Defense attorneys and experts claim an adverse reaction to the antidepressant Zoloft caused Pittman to become manic and psychotic. Because of that, they said the drug caused Pittman to be involuntarily intoxicated and that he did not know right from wrong or act with malice aforethought -- a necessary condition for a murder conviction.

An official from Pfizer, which makes Zoloft, testified that no link exists between the drug and violence or homicide. Did he know right and wrong? "The only issue is did he know the difference between right and wrong," Meadors said.

Meadors and solicitor Barney Giese told jurors that Pittman's actions after the killings indicated he knew what he'd done was wrong. They said Pittman killed his grandparents after they disciplined him for choking a second-grader on a school bus.

Waiting for his grandparents to go to bed was part of his plan, and the fire was set to give him time to get away, they said. Those actions were malicious, they said. Telling authorities that a black man had committed the crimes when found the next showed that Pittman knew what he'd done was wrong, they said.

Experts on both sides agreed that Zoloft, in rare circumstances, can cause emotional blunting and rapid cycling between mania and psychosis, and akathisia, a condition defined as severe inner-restlessness.

Defense lawyer Andy Vickery reminded jurors of that one defense expert testified that more people dropped out of clinical trials testing Zoloft on depressed children after developing aggressive reactions than any other reason. Another said Pittman was sensitive to antidepressants and believed Zoloft triggered his violent behavior.

Dr. Lanette Atkins, the only child psychiatrist involved in the case, spent more time interviewing Pittman than all other experts combined, Vickery said. Atkins testified that Pittman developed a drug-induced mood disorder and experienced hallucinations that told him to kill.

Prosecutors tried to discredit each of defense expert but aimed their most vehement shots at Atkins -- perhaps the defense's most important expert. Meadors said it's time for Atkins to go back to Columbia, where she works for the state Department of Mental Health. "Go home, Dr. Atkins," Meadors said as he stared at her in the front row...

end Herald snip

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com