Train wreck possibly not suicide attempt
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6975966/

It's sketchy based on what's reported, but police are now saying that it looks as if the guy who parked his Jeep on the Metrolink tracks may not have been attempting suicide, but was in fact intending to cause a spectacular accident to impress his estranged wife. This article doesn't mention what I saw in another article, that the cuts on his wrists were not the result of a failed suicide attempt previous to the train accident, but were self inflicted AFTER it happened.

"Honey, I'm bored. I wish there were some sort of spectacular train wreck to amuse me..."

"Oh Gomez..."

Someone brought in a morning paper in which it was speculated that he wanted to get his wife's attention/sympathies -- allegedly while at the hospital he kept asking if she'd come to see him yet.

What is California's test for insanity?

So many evil answers, so little time...

Well... chuckle... legally?

http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/spring95/tmpinsan.html

Interestingly, this page notes that if the defendant does not initially plead not guilty by reason of insanity, then the court does not have to accept an insanity plea later on. The defendant in this case has, thus far, pleaded only "not guilty". Although in this case I believe they are considering amending or changing the charges in light of this new theory, so that might change things.

Thanks, GD

If you need a test to prove your insane after you drive your car infront of an oncoming train with hundreds of people onboard for entertainment, something is really wrong with the system.