Job and income killer claims he suffered psychosis during trial preparation

Ashburton Work and Income killer Russell John Tully says he urinated on court documents before his trial because he thought the “black pieces of redacted information were bad.”

Tully, now 54, is fighting his conviction and a life sentence with a 27-year non-parole period behind bars by claiming he was in no condition to stand trial. His appeal is being heard by the Christchurch Court of Appeal, where he represents himself.

Tully, who was described as “a very dangerous man” by a High Court judge after killing two women during the targeted shooting spree, is serving one of the longest sentences ever handed down in New Zealand. Longer sentences have only been imposed on the March 15th mosque shooter, triple killer William Bell and double killer Bruce Howse.

Tully entered the Labor and Income office in Mid-Canterbury on September 1, 2014, armed with a shotgun. His intention was to shoot the staff out of a sense of injury, thinking that he was treated unfairly for several months.

READ MORE:
* Appeal date set for job and income shooter Russell John Tully
* Guards and a locked front door may have saved Ashburton’s victims
* Job and income shooter Russell John Tully files appeal
* Russell John Tully guilty of the Ashburton Work and Income murders

He was convicted in 2016 of the murders of receptionist Peggy Turuhira Noble and social worker Susan Leigh Cleveland, and the attempted murder of Kim Elizabeth Adams, whom he shot with the shotgun but failed when she escaped through the back door of the offices.

He was found not guilty of attempting to murder Lindy Curtis, whom he shot in the thigh.

His rampage lasted 61 seconds, in which he fired six shots and was captured by security camera footage.

During the trial, Tully claimed that the Crown’s evidence and other reports were a “cover up.”

On Thursday, he entered court and took a seat on the law benches flanked by three Corrections officers. He was calmer than during the trial, when he had to be taken out of court during part of the proceedings and at one point had to be restrained in a wheelchair.

Tully’s appeal relies heavily on her claim that she was chronically unwell during the trial and pretrial court proceedings. He claimed that the Department of Corrections withheld the over-the-counter medications he used to treat his alleged anonymous condition, rendering him “unable to understand anything” at the time.

Tully said he treated his condition by pouring hydrogen peroxide into his ears. He claimed this took up to five hours out of his day, another reason he “didn’t have enough time” to properly prepare for his trial.

He told the court that his condition was caused by a genetic chromosomal abnormality associated with a number of autoimmune disorders that can cause cognitive dysfunction.

This was also the reason why he was unable to show any remorse at the time, he said. “It just wasn’t working properly,” he told the court.

He claimed that his defense attorney did not follow his instructions and raised “medical mental health issues” that were crucial to his case.

He said he was kept in the Christchurch Men’s Prison Management Unit, which was not suitable for someone with mental health problems.

In an attempt to prove he was suffering from psychosis in preparation for his trial, Tully said he received court documents but that he thought the black blocks hiding redacted information “were evil.”

“So I tore them up, put noodles on it, and peed all over it. And then Corrections tried to hide the fact that I had done that, ”he said.

Tully claimed that while preparing for the trial he did not have glasses and was unable to read the disclosure correctly. “The corrections misled the court as to my preparations for trial and appeal,” he said.

The first witness to be called was Christchurch attorney James Rapley QC, who was one of two amicus curiae appointed by the court to assist during the Tully trial.

‘Defiant personality does not mean mentally ill’

During questioning, Rapley described his difficulty relating to Tully in preparation for trial, saying that Tully was concerned about a perceived “skin condition” that he claimed was affecting his brain and causing him to be in no condition to stand trial.

He described how Tully claimed during an interview, shortly after Rapley was assigned to the case, that he had not carried out the shooting. Rapley told him that if he hadn’t, a claim of insanity would not be relevant.

“Then he changed position and said, oh, it could have been the shooter; and then I went back to the crazy aspect, “Rapley said.

When Tully was given the opportunity to question Rapley, he repeatedly asked why Rapley had not referred Tully to a specialist for examination after he told him about his affliction and that he had a mental illness.

Rapley said he already had information from two reports by a psychologist and a psychiatrist, as well as the results of medical tests.

He said that he did not find that Tully suffered from “neurosis”, a term used by Tully, and that Tully seemed to be able to understand what was happening, discuss issues about the case and interact with his attorney.

For the Crown, Rebecca Thomson said all the psychologists and defense attorneys who dealt with Tully agreed that he had a “defiant personality” and suffered from severe delusions about his skin condition. But that didn’t mean he was crazy when he committed the murders, he said.

He said only defenses that were supported by a plausible narrative could be put to a jury. In the same way, it would have been unrealistic to tell the jury, for example, that Tully acted in self-defense, it was implausible to tell the jury that he suffered from insanity – there was no evidence to support either defense, Thomson said.

She said that experts had found that Tully displayed symptoms of a personality disorder, but could not make a formal diagnosis, such as having a narcissistic or antisocial personality disorder.

Even if Tully was accepted as suffering from a personality disorder, that did not mean that he was incapable of understanding that his actions were morally wrong, Thomson said.

His warped logic regarding his perceived skin condition and its effects had nothing to do with him killing two people, he said.

“Mr. Tully had a grudge and had a plan when he committed this crime six years ago. His actions were deliberate and calculated. His conduct since that day has really been aimed at avoiding responsibility for that crime. “

He pointed to Tully’s calculated actions on the day of the shooting to avoid arrest and prosecution for the crime. He hid his face under a balaclava, fled the scene on a bicycle, and then switched to another bicycle, disposed of the shotgun on the way, and was found hiding in a hedge with clothing and other items that made it clear that his intention was avoid capture.

The hearing continues.