cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-06-03 - Re: McVeigh

Header Data

From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: a7edaf04c622f8c1e7553791c6c89486d498fa734b9c159370ef14c4622578cb
Message ID: <199706030103.SAA24459@netcom3.netcom.com>
Reply To: <199706030020.TAA04784@manifold.algebra.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-03 03:02:12 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 11:02:12 +0800

Raw message

From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 11:02:12 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: McVeigh
In-Reply-To: <199706030020.TAA04784@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <199706030103.SAA24459@netcom3.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Igor writes:

> Is that the end of the story? I understand it that he can appeal, and
> will. 

One of the major flaws of the Criminal Justice System in this country is
that one can only appeal based on procedural issues.  No one, after a
trial has concluded, may ever challenge the trial verdict. They may only
argue that the proper ritual was not followed, and higher courts are very
reluctant to disagree with the actions of lower courts, preferring instead
to state that the errors committed would likely not have affected the
outcome. 

It gets even worse than that.  Many states, Texas amongst them, have a
time limit for the introduction of new evidence after a trial, even if it
completely exonerates the defendent, and are prefectly willing to execute
someone as long as they have been given "due process," even if it has been
clearly demonstrated that they are not guilty. 

Thus the Sheeple are led by their politicians to ridicule the numerous
often-frivilous appeals defendents engage in, irrespective of the fact
that frivilous appeals are the only ones allowed under law, the defendant
having no right at all to suggest that twelve Sheeple being performed for
by the local prosecutor produced something other than a Biblically inerant
verdict. 

McVeigh therefore has no chance at all at getting another hearing on the
facts of the case.  He might claim that the confidential attorney/client
work product stolen from the defense team computer on the eve of the trial
and touted in papers nationwide as a "confession"  poisoned the jury pool. 
But even that has little luck at succeeding. 

The only difference between Tim McVeigh and Richard Jewell is that the
government stopped the hatchet job on Jewell in midstream. 

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

Thread