Exclusion
By enrico
- 578 reads
The court documents revealed that throughout the trial the
defendant, a prominent historian at the University of Minnesota, had
fixated on the slang term, clams, presumed in court to be an irrelevant
reference to money, almost to the exclusion of other facts in the case.
He insisted that he must be allowed to explain how clams was connected
to the case, that it was an important fact not properly recognized by
the court. Even when the court proclaimed the historian was guilty of
the hideous crime of gouging out his daughter's eyes, he still insisted
that clams was an important and legal part of the trial that was
unfairly excluded from the hearing. The Hennepin County court reporter
said, when interviewed by the local news station, that she had never
recorded such a hideous crime. After three days in prison the historian
began a letter writing campaign seeking an appeal. He was not granted
an appeal due almost exclusively to the repulsion everyone felt for the
crime. He succeeded however in explaining that the significance of
clams during the testimony was that his daughter's eyes resembled clams
when she was sleeping and he had pried them open in order to find the
pearl.
- Log in to post comments