From: TruthMonger <tm@dev.null>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:35:56 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Self-proclaimed judge and jury.
Message-ID: <34596AEB.67F1@dev.null>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



After my success in predicting the outcome of the 'au pair' trial, which
is but one of my astonishing string of legal predictions, I have decided
to offer my services as self-proclaimed judge and jury, in order to 
spare the government and its taxpayers the increasingly outrageous cost
of incarcerating or freeing the innocent and the guilty, seemingly at
random.

A bar-table conference of lawyers and judges agreed wholeheartedly with
me that the *evidence* presented in the 'au pair's' trial in no way 
supported a verdict of first, or even second, degree murder.

> To convict Woodward of second-degree murder, the jury found
> that she intentionally killed the baby with malice, but without
> atrocity or premeditation. 

  My panel, to a person, agreed with Barry Scheck that the prosecution 
had not even "come close" to proving the above, based on the evidence. 
None of them were foolish enough, however, to believe that the decision
of the jury would be based on the evidence and the law.

  I announced, with an air of certitude, that the verdict would be
guilty. My reasoning?
1. Morning talk shows show that the sheeple want *somebody* to pay for
  each and every perceived wrong done on the face of the media-lit
  earth.
2. The sheeple don't really give a fat rat's ass about finding the
  *right* villain, but only the best media-promoted candidate.
3. The obvious target is whoever is 'the least like *me*'!
4. The parents are media friendly, the 'au pair' has British reserve.

  In short, the British are emotional cryptographers, who obviously have
something to hide. Outgoing Americans, who look like us, dress like us
and act like us, need only to 'leave us laughing' in order to skip
out the door to freedom while pigmentation and/or non-photographic
criminals go to the gallows.

  Guilty!

My other successful predictions, in a nutshell:
Kennedy Rapist - "White-bread is going to walk."
Boxer Rapist - "Nigger's going to jail."
Simpson-Brown Murderer: "We were climbing over the fence to OJ's estate
  hollering, 'We're from the government, and we're here to help you.'"
  ~My Verdict~ "If the police are shit, blacks will acquit."
OJ Civil Trial - Right...like *anyone* is going to brag about predicting
  the outcome of a black man in front of a rigged jury...

  In case you think I am *bragging* about my remarkable skill in making
correct predictions about the outcome of almost all trials that I take
an interest in...guess again.
  I am a cynical, pessimistic person with low self-esteem, who is able
to egoistically consider himself 'superior to the sheeple' only by 
virtue of the fact that their repetitive echoing of whatever the media
'bleats' in their direction places them in the animal/vegetable/mineral
kingdoms which I believe I have risen ever so slightly above in my
quest for consciousness.
  I am, in fact, totally *horrified* that I am able to correctly predict
the outcome of what is supposed to be a process of rational judgement
by basing my analysis on the supposition that the legal system exists
mostly for the purpose of perpetuating its own position of authority, 
and that its members chief aim is to WIN--at the cost of justice, if
need be, and often even out of the interests of mere expediency.

  From my experience, legal resolution to criminal charges has been 
quickened more over the years by golf clubs who have 'moved up' an
attorney's tee-time, than by any 'right to a speedy trial' legislation
has ever done.
  I would like, deep down inside, to believe that I am full of shit in
this regard, but I just keep successfully predicting the outcome of 
trials by being an irreverent, cynical asshole.
  Go figure...

TruthMonger