With the trial of George Milton wrapping up this week, I think it’s necessary that I insert my own opinion on this case out into the public eye as well. I mean, it’s about time now - the trial is indeed ending tomorrow. I believe that George Milton is guilty in the first degree for the murder of one Lennie Small. The defense and the prosecution both made many strong points throughout this whole trial. But even when they were cross-examining, I think the prosecution made their points far easier to understand, and in the end, easier to believe.
Firstly, during Marie Jones’s examination on the second day of the trial, she told the court about the one time Mr. Milton got Lennie off of her during an attack on her years ago. It turns out Marie was actually scared that George was going to kill Lennie after the attack because he continued to hit him over the head with a fence picket as a consequence for his actions. This piece of firsthand evidence from one female witness tells me that George Milton had the capability to hurt, and eventually, kill Lennie Small since he had the indecency to knock his supposed ‘friend’ unconscious with a fence tool.
Another strong point during the trial that stuck out to me was when Carlson Smith was up on the stand. Near the end of his examination, he acknowledged that he was sure George took his Luger before the killing of Lennie Small. We know that Lennie was killed with a gun to the back of his head, so if George took Carlson’s gun, then that can only mean one thing - this was a deliberately planned killing by one George Milton. Also, another valid point that was brought up by the prosecution during the trial was that George was wearing a big, heavy, denim jacket during the day of the murder. Now, keep in mind - It’s hot in California during that time of year when the murder occurred, so why on Earth would Mr. Milton need that big and sweat-inducing jacket on a day like that? To hide the Luger, so he can shoot Lennie later on, that’s why!
Additionally, during Josiah Lincoln’s (also known as Crooks) questioning, Mr. Lincoln informed the courtroom of the time when George came back from getting drinks with the other ranch hands and found Lennie in Crooks’s room chatting him up. Apparently, this deeply concerned George because he then decided to profusely yell repeatedly at Lennie for his actions - actions that only involved a lonely man left alone on a ranch talking to the only other guy who was also left there alone. This can be seen as verbal abuse in some people’s eyes, and frankly, this doesn’t show any stability or normality in George Milton either. Does he have anger issues? I’m not the one to ask, but I’m just saying - I thought Lennie was the only one with an intellectual disability around here… And this wasn’t all.
Later on in the trial, one moment from Mr. Milton and Mr. Small’s past came to light that stirred up some serious controversy in the courtroom. This moment was brought up in Chuck Long’s, Slim Johnson’s, and even the accused man himself, George Milton’s testimonies. It turns out that years ago George Milton played many pranks on poor Lennie Small, but the one that stood out the most to the jury was when George told Lennie to jump in a nearby river, when Lennie was never actually capable of swimming. Chuck Long didn’t see this as a strong sign of friendship, and neither do I. Who risks their friend’s life like that? Not my friends, that’s all I’m saying. Slim Johnson happened to have a different take on the situation, telling the court that George has matured and doesn’t do things like that anymore. Really? That must be why he killed his so-called ‘best friend’. Plus, George claims that he regrets those pranks and wasn’t aware of the fact that Lennie could not adequately swim. Again, really George? Great explanation…telling the State of California that he ‘regrets those actions’, yet has he ever even stopped to regret his sole part in the murder of his best friend, Lennie Small? And if George was actually Mr. Small’s best friend for all of his life, then how did Mr. Milton never come across the fact that he couldn’t swim? In my opinion, the defense’s witnesses just weren’t convincing enough to prove any sort of innocence for George Milton.
A few other things that were brought to my attention during this trial included the fact that George Milton took Lennie’s money multiple times throughout their friendship. George Milton said during his time on the stand that he only took Lennie’s money for ‘safekeeping’. And when asked by one lawyer if he used Mr. Small’s personal, hard earned money on drinks for himself, Mr. Milton replied by telling the lawyer that he only used his own money for his drinks. Now how could he honestly know that? How is it possible to differentiate every single piece of money between him and Lennie every time he goes out for some drinks? The same lawyer also asked him what exactly did he use Lennie’s money on then, and George told the lawyer that he used Lennie’s money on what was best for them both. What I am wondering is what is George Milton’s definition of ‘best for the both of them’? Because that statement should not be taken lightly, for it can be viewed in many different ways.
A last point I will write about that was brought up during this trial was when it was recognized that George had spoken aloud multiple times that he’d be much better off without Lennie around him anymore, because he’s too much of a bother, an outright pain, to one ostentatious, meaningless, little George Milton. If the main suspect in a murder trial says something like this prior to the murder, doesn’t it give the guy an intent, a motive, a reason to ultimately kill?
Having taken every part of this trial into account, I don’t see how George Milton could’ve killed his best friend without planning it beforehand, especially with everything that’s occurred between the two leading up to this point in time. As the lead prosecution once said at the very beginning of this murder trial, what kind of best friend does this to his other half? There is no other possible way around this case. And it truly doesn’t matter to me if I am able convince anyone else of my opinion, because the real fact of the matter is that a negligent, downright angry man killed another lonely man with an intellectual disability in cold blood on one balmy afternoon in the Salinas Valley. And that is how Lennie Small and George Milton’s journey must end - with justice served fresh on a plate delivered to Lennie in his grave, with George’s jail ridden face baked and glazed all over it.
Komentáre