A Few Observations...
So I'm up to Day 13 of the trial, where Judge Dorow is trying to get through the colique and the jury instructions, but Mr. I-Don't-Consent-To-Being-Called-By-That-Name-Despite-The-Fact-I-Have-a-Drivers-License-and-Credit-Cards-in-that-Name is throwing a hissy fit. A few observations:
While I've seen clips of Mr. Brooks' worst moments (pretty much 90% of the trial), this is the first time I'm watching the trial in its entirety. I will say that I was surprised that he had a lot of calm moments - despite the fact that he still tried to delay and derail the trial by bringing up "subject matter jurisdiction" and objecting to EVERY. FUCKING. QUESTION. by the prosecution to the witnesses. I thought there would be a lot more loony.
He clearly loses his shit towards the end of the trial because he knows the end is near, the Duhrrel Brooks Show is about to be canceled, that he's going to be locked up and nobody's going to give a shit about him. With all due respect to his mother, I don't think he ever was told "no" by her as a child, and, from what I can see (caveat, I'm not a psychologist), I'd posit that he has oppositional defiance disorder.
This trial highlights why I could never be a judge or a lawyer, because I would lack the self-control NOT to say, "Shut the fuck up," and "Your honor, that is THE dumbest argument I have EVER heard in my entire life."
It makes me laugh how, when he said he wanted to represent himself and it was pointed out the amount of legal experience the prosecution team has vs. him, he said, "THAT DON'T MAKE ME FLINCH," yet he keeps on complaining, "I'm not a lawyer! I don't understand any of this stuff! That's not fair!"
Speaking of his defense - or lack thereof - he never offered anything that even RESEMBLED a defense. When you present a case, you are crafting a narrative, explaining how you get from point A to point B to point C. Brooks never gave the central argument for his defense: not "it wasn't me," not "I didn't know what I was doing," not "I didn't have control of the vehicle." Which is not to say that he try to inject elements of these into his arguments - he absolutely did, but it was more of a "I'm going to throw my feces against the walls and see what sticks." Which again goes to the his central strategy: to disrupt and derail.
I know what the outcome is, I've seen the verdict ("Rot in hell, you piece of shit!") and the sentencing. I hope he suffers a very long, very painful end. And I know that while the victims' families will speak of their loved ones with love and pride, Mr. Brooks' family will speak of him (if at all) with shame and disappointment. Where the children of the victims will remember their parents fondly, Mr. Brooks' children will choose not to remember him at all. And THAT is as it should be.