THANKFULLY, JESSICA'S JURY SAW THROUGH IT

The murder trial of O.J. Simpson proved there's no limit to the extent to
which criminal lawyers will go to defend their clients.

That's why they get the big bucks.

There is never any guarantee, however, that a dozen hand-picked jurors will
see through even the most loopy "devil-made-me-do-it" defence theories.

Thankfully, the jurors selected by Crown and defence to weigh the evidence
in the murder trial of 11-year-old Jessica States, did.

We know the drunk-and-drugged alibi put forward by counsel for the killer
irked Province readers. Your heated responses materialized practically the
moment the lawyer opened his mouth.

Because the jury was hearing evidence at the time and newspapers face hefty
fines, even prison sentences, for publishing material that could prejudice
a jury, we kept silent until the verdict was rendered this week.

In convicting 23-year-old Roderick Patten of first-degree murder, jurors
had to conclude that the accused deliberately killed the child during or
shortly after having penetrated her. Either to render her helpless, or to
shut her up, or both.

In rendering such a verdict, the jury intentionally rejected the submission
of defence counsel and some 'experts' that Patten -- because he was loaded
with booze, hash, and enough LSD to immobilize an elephant -- didn't have
his wits about him while he was raping, cramming dirt down her throat and
driving the pointed edge of a stick into her brain.

In other words, the excuse was Patten didn't know what he was doing, that
he lacked the mental clarity or "guilty mind," that is required for a first
degree murder conviction in this country. Phrased another way, he was
incapable of forming the intent to commit such a heinous crime. And without
intent, there can be no murder in the first.

Whether Patten popped a fistful of LSD tablets or a handful of Smarties
into his trap before murdering Jessica is irrelevant to Diane and Robert
States, Jessica's parents.

Nor does it appear to have mattered to the jury, which decided either 1)
that the youth was a lousy liar, or 2) his drug use -- no matter how fuzzy
it made his head -- was inconsequential. That in freely choosing to ingest
booze and drugs, he was committed to taking responsibility.

Because talking to jurors about their deliberations is a crime in Canada,
we'll never know for certain which of the two options the 12 Victoria
jurors choose.

Whichever one, they did good.