From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Date: Sun Aug 04 1996 - 12:07:40 MDT
At 07:49 AM 8/3/96 -0400, GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
>Ian's post about terrorism prompted some random thoughts:
>
>First, as a matter of my own personal practice, I find it is usually not
>fruitful to comment on the weight of evidence in any particular pending case
>that has interest to the general public (look at the billions of wasted words
>in connection with the OJ Simpson case ...). This is because both sides in
>the actual case have a strong interest in *advocacy* rather than
>truth-seeking (that's how the system is supposed to work, after all) and
>unless you're involved in the case personally as party, judge, advocate or
>juror, you're unlikely to see anything like a balanced presentation of
>evidence. While a "fair" legal journalist may attempt to present a balanced
>subset of the evidence and arguments, taking that journalist's presentation
>as a basis of opinion is just accepting her work as a substitute for the
>gestalt of a trial. As we say down here in Tejas, no matter how thin you
>pour the pancakes, they always have two sides. That's why we have trials.
IAN: And there is two sides of a trial, what the Judge allows to be included
and what the Judge does not allow. I think the jury is the true judge
and should have unrestricted access to all information, anything less
is a sham.
In the Trade Center bombing, the tape recording of an FBI agent telling
the terrorist mole to use real explosives was not allowed, because the
plant, who was later convicted, did not have permission to record the
govt agent. So the fact that the FBI was running the whole bombing
operation is de facto erased.
In the Waco trial the vast majority of the Davidian's defense was barred.
The prosecution went on and on for a month while the defenses case was
paired down to one afternoon. While the jury still acquitted all the
survivors of conspiracy to murder, the court / judge did all it
could to prevent such an outcome.
In the Oklahoma case, as I mentioned, the Grand Juror in charge of
evidence said "No one who saw McVeigh with other suspects, [ such
as John Doe #2 ] was ever allowed to testify before the Federal
Grand Jury." That right there tells you that you can't count on
the court for truth. Let's face it, the govt controls the court,
which is not to say justice is 100% impossible - yet.
And then the govt controls the evidence, and no surprise, they manipulate it.
Gary Spence (Randy Weaver's lawyer) said that in every case he has ever had
against the FBI, it was proven beyond doubt that the FBI had manipulated
evidence. In the Waco case, the FBI "lost" the most important half of the
two sided front door to the Davidian's home, the side which both lawyers
Degaren and Zimmerman said (after seeing it on their visit during the
siege) had only bullet holes going from out to in.
Former Attorney General Ramsy Clark, who will represent Davidians in a
case for wrongful death, tried to stop the govt from taking away all
the remains and the top few feet of soil at Mt. Carmel, after bodies
were found to have very high levels of cyanide. CS gas converts to
several elements upon heating one of which is cyanide. To no avail,
the govt dug up everything and buried it. Amazing.
Same story in the Oklahoma case. General Partin pleaded with the govt
not to destroy the evidence by leveling the Murrah building. Determined
to see it first hand, not just detailed photographs, he prepared to go
to the Building, but they quickly leveled it and literally transported
every piece of the remains to a large dump and buried it under 15 ft
of soil, all this before Gen. Partin could even get there. Amazing speed.
The dump was surrounded with a high barbed-wire fence and armed guards.
Gen. Partin was not allowed to set foot inside. The defense had equal
failure in stopping the wholesale destruction of all physical evidence.
Also this is from the AP printed in The Washington Times (4/10/96):
Prosecutors agreed to turn over letters from FBI
agent Frederic Whitehurts, who tested Mr. McVeigh's
cloths for traces of explosives. Mr. Whitehurst has
claimed that investigators faked evidence in the
bombing case. ^^^^^
The evidence that exists, the FBI destroys, the evidence that does not
exist, the FBI creats. The facts dictate that the FBI is an enemy of
truth and justice. How can anything the FBI ever says be believed?
There's so much more, even in just these two cases. Indeed, books could
be filled with reasons why we can't rely on the outcome of courts, and
thus, why independent investigation is necessary.
>Beyond this, the "militia movement" seems far too broad to generate much,
>if any good. Most of its adherents seem to accept unquestioningly that a
>powerful state should exist; they just don't like the one they happen to live
>in and claim the right to violently oppose its policies. That's bad medicine
>in my book. Furthermore, there are undeniable racist and fundamentalist
>religious currents in the militia culture, absolute anathema to extropians.
IAN: I predict that one day the Militias will be co-opted by the govt and
the "Militia" will be the patrol that wakes-up communities for mandatory
exercises and urine tests every morning. Lots of guys with lots of
guns rarely turns into a good thing.
Law of Identity: A is A, relative to not-A. A = (A + ~A)
Law of Nonidentity: If there is 100% A, there is 0% A. A = ~A
absolute reality: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/reality.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:42 MST