|The Trial. Well there was no trial but had one taken place what would the defence have been? Lets assume a plea of not guilty. Then the first line of approach would have been to claim that the prosecution had in fact failed to prove any case to answer under the charge of second degree murder. After all the prosecution had no witness to the crime, very little evidence and definately no finger prints. In short what the prosecution would present to the court consists entirely of frorensic evidence. Lets take a closer look at this evidence. Yes the prosecutuion can show that Nancy Spungen died from a knife wound just bellow the sternum. And yes they ( the prosecution ) can show that in all probability that wound was the result of a knife penitration like or similar to that which would be produce by exhibits T1and T2.From the defence's point of view a close exsamination of the murder weapon is not usually in their clients best interest and when introduced by the prosecution is quickly glossed over by the defence if at all possible. So lets look at these knifes. In fact lets call Mr Leon to the stand an
d find out if these are the knifes he was reffering to in his statement to the New York Police. Because if these are the knifes in question then something is seriously amiss. According to Mr Leon these lock knifes were supposedly recent purchases. But that is not consistent with their physical condition.
|On initial inspection both knifes appear to be in good condition, although lock knifes the blade on neither weapon will lock into position with any ease. In fact exhibit T1 will not lock in position at all while T2 (See QuickTime movie) will only lock in position by applying force to the mechanism. A lock knife that could close on your fingers is not really much of a weapon, certainly not one that could be relyed on. And what of the missing finger prints? Without doubt the prosecution would argue that the lack of finger prints is clear evidence ofthe defendents guilt or complicity in Nancys death. But is that really the case, any half decent lawyer would undoubtably picked serious holes in such flimsy evidence, not to mention the wonderful fishing expidition that would presented to the defence with the prosecution witness. In any event exhibits T1 and T2 may well be the murder weapons but that in itself is no proof of who was holding or wielding the knife in question. We also know that in their original interviews with Sid detectives obtained a confession. This confession was later retracted. Leaving aside the issue of whether such evidence is admissible. Could any reasonable person consider a statement made by a person intoxicated by strong narcotics to be reliable.What of the other evidence, there were two known visitors to room 100 that night. From Rockets Redglare who delivered a quantity of synthetic morphine to room 100 around 1.30.He took several hundred dollars promising to supply more the following day. When he left some time between 4 and 5am that morning Nancy was still alive. When leaving the hotel Redglare says that he saw another dealer, Steve Cincotti arriving. Cincotti statement says he supplied Sid and Nancy with Tuinal and then left. There are at least three important questions that need asking of both Mr Redglare and Mr Cincotti. When Rockets delivered the morphine and took several hundred dollars to supply more. Did he see more money in the room? Did Cincotti see more money in the room?Did either of them see Sid take the morphine or the tuinol. If so what physical state was he in ? Was he coherent ? Was he conscious ?If the answer to the first question is yes then where did that money go ? It was never found. Perhaps after Cincotti left both Sid and Nancy passed out. Later still an unknown Third party entered room 100 and awoke Nancy. And in the process of a burglary murdered Nancy. The second defence that could have been deployed and in hindsight is probably the true story of what happened in room 100 that night. We know from Deborah Spungen that Nancy had predicted that she would never see the age of twenty-one.
" I'm going to die very soon. Before my 21st birthday. I won't live to be 21. I'm never goingto be old. I don't ever want to be ugly and old. I'm an old lady now anyhow. I'm 80. Theres nothing left. I've already lived a whole lifetime. I'm going out. In a blaze of glory."
And I Don't Want To Live This Life
We know from an interview Sid gave in April 1978 that Sid held a similar view.
I'll die before I'm very old. I don't know why. I just have this feeling. There have been plenty times when we've nearly died."
So did Sid and Nancy have a death pact. Did Nancy awake that morning and thinking Sid was dead or dying take her own life ? His actions earlier that evening, leaving his leather jacket and the gold records with Neon Leon are consistent with that theory. And Sids own suicide note certainly conforms to the theory of a death pact. Truly it is ironic that a person defence to a charge of second degree murder should be their own suicide note. Did Sid kill Nancy ? We'll never really know the answer to that question, but either of the defenses proposed here cast more than a shadow of doubt.