🚀 go-pugleaf

Well, Bob, you ought to know what you are.

<rhawk@megabits.net> wrote in message
news:3b4591d9.2066699@news.megabits.net...
>
> All McVeigh did was send a message to Janet Reno to reminde her
> of the SLAUGHTER she perpetuated at Waco and the killing ay Ruby
> Ridge..  She, is "that piece of shit"...
>
> Just MY Opinion..
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 02:07:31 -0700, "An Entity" <anonymity@ucla.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >That piece of shit got what he deserved.  He confessed to the crime, and
the
> >revelation of a conspiracy would have had no effect on his fate.  The FBI
> >probably had several hundred thousand documents on McVeigh, of which 3000
> >constitutes less than 1%.
> >
> >99% of the documents and McVeigh's own confession prove that he was a
piece
> >of shit.  I don't see how 1% of the documents could possibly change the
> >scenario.  And, the judges agreed with me.
> >
> >" Fabrikant" <hollyric@colba.net> wrote in message
> >news:9i1ph9$bi4$1@news.colba.net...
> >> It was reported that FBI "forgot" to disclose certain documents on
> >McVeigh;
> >> some say, 3000 plus documents, some say, 3000 plus pages.  McVeigh's
> >lawyer
> >> was shown with several boxes of paper.  Each such box contains at least
> >> 10,000 pages, so clearly, we are talking about 3000 documents.  An FBI
> >> representative said that FBI had 1 BILLION documents on McVeigh, so
3000
> >> documents constitute only 3 in a million, which is an excellent
> >performance.
> >>
> >> Do they really have 1 BILLION documents on McVeigh?  Let us do some
> >> arithmetics.  A book of 500 pages is about 4 cm thick, so elementary
> >> computations show that I BILLION pages will be 80 km thick!  If you
> >presume,
> >> that you can read 1 page per second, it will take you 32 years (24
hours
> >per
> >> day, 365 days per year) to read them.  In reality, you need at least 1
> >> minute to read a page, so you will have to spend more than 1800 years!
> >> These FBI guys take public for dumbheads.
> >>
> >> Second question: did FBI really forgot to disclose documents?  The
media
> >> reported that FBI computer system is "antiquated".  I do not buy it for
a
> >> second: FBI never had any problem with money, and I am sure they have
> >newest
> >> and fastest computers.  There was a show recently about the Security
> >> Intelligence Agency, and the Agency representative proudly said that
they
> >> had more computer power on a square yard than any other place on earth.
> >> There is no reason to believe that FBI would be far behind.  Even
> >presuming
> >> that FBI computers are slow, it has nothing to do with their ability to
> >> retrieve documents: slow computers just require more time to do the
same
> >> thing.
> >>
> >> Yellow media reported one FBI analyst saying that she did not want to
> >> introduce her documents into a computer database, because she was
afraid
> >> that she would not be able later to retrieve them.  I have a surprise
for
> >> her: introduction of a document into a computer means making a copy of
the
> >> document into a magnetic media, she still has the document on paper, so
> >she
> >> has nothing to loose.  On the other hand, if she does NOT introduce her
> >> document into a database, she would certainly not be able to retrieve
it.
> >> Did the yellow reporter know this?  Of course!  So, why is he doing
this?
> >> Because majority of the public do not know computers and can be duped.
> >Were
> >> you duped?
> >>
> >> One should note, that nobody mentions, how many documents WERE
disclosed.
> >> In my case, there were not even 100 documents disclosed.  Presume, that
in
> >> McVeigh case there were 10 times more documents and this will come to
1000
> >> documents, which is a lot.  Now, 3000 documents undisclosed is 3 times
> >> bigger than what was disclosed.  One can not just "forget" major part
of
> >> documents.  It is my understanding that the undisclosed documents are
> >> dealing with existence of John Doe #2.  Several people claim to have
seen
> >> him.  If FBI admits his existence, this would mean that FBI did not do
its
> >> job.  It is much more convenient to claim that the matter is closed
> >> successfully.
> >>
> >> Some people say, that since McVeigh admitted planting of the bomb, no
> >> document could change anything.  History knows quite a number of false
> >> confessions.  McVeigh could have confessed to something he did not do
in
> >> order to protect someone, who is dear to him.  Majority of people, who
> >knew
> >> him, say that they hate what he has done, but that they still love him.
> >The
> >> same thing A.Rooney said about Senator Kerrey: he did not like what
Kerrey
> >> did, but he liked the man.  There is though one difference: McVeigh is
> >> waiting to be executed, while Kerrey is hailed as American hero.
Should
> >not
> >> Kerrey be sitting in the next cell?
> >>
> >> So, government knew all alone that 3000 plus documents were not
disclosed
> >to
> >> McVeigh.  Why have they decided to disclose them now?  This is what my
> >> paranoidal mind tells me.  US government does not like the situation
where
> >> McVeigh effectively spits in their faces, since he decided to get out
> >"with
> >> a bang".  They know that McVeigh's execution will make him in the eyes
of
> >> many a martyr.  US government wants McVeigh to beg them for his life,
this
> >> is why they are throwing at him this bait - new evidence, and his
lawyers,
> >> paid by government, are trying to convince McVeigh to continue his
> >appeals,
> >> though they know full well, that nothing will come from these appeals.
> >>
> >> The main legal question here is: did McVeigh have a fair trial?  Let us
> >> recount facts.  His lawyer Jones got $10 MILLION - a very good pay to
sell
> >> his client, and sell he did.  First, he simulated break-in into his
> >> computer, when he revealed to the media the contents of his private
> >> conversations with McVeigh.  I do not believe Jones was so dumb to keep
> >> sensitive documents unscrambled.  After all the newspapers in the
country
> >> published that McVeigh admitted to Jones that he planted the bomb,
there
> >was
> >> no point to go to trial - the guilty verdict was guaranteed.
> >>
> >> The next question is: did his lawyer do his best on the sentencing
stage
> >to
> >> protect the life of his client?  I quote just one sentence from Jones'
> >> speech: he told the jury that though his client has killed more
innocent
> >> people than Bundy, Dahlmer and other famous mass murderers combined, he
> >> should not be sentenced to die.  With such a lawyer, who needs a
> >prosecutor?
> >> He effectively equated his client with people, who killed for pleasure.
> >Is
> >> Jones really that stupid?  No, he was very well paid to sell his
client,
> >and
> >> he did.  McVeigh has finally understood Jones' treachery and fired him,
> >but
> >> it was too late.
> >>
> >> Now, what would an honest lawyer do in McVeigh case?  He should have
> >called
> >> to testify Kelly (butcher of Vietnamese village My Lai), Senator Kerrey
> >and
> >> other well known war criminals, and asked them to describe in detail,
how
> >> they cut throats, raped, mutilated innocent unarmed civilians, and how
> >they
> >> got away with their crimes.  The jury saw the pictures of victims of
> >> Oklahoma bombing, an honest lawyer should show them pictures of people
> >> killed at My Lai, pictures of people burnt alive at Waco, picture of
the
> >> wife and little child of Randy Weaver, killed by government with
impunity
> >> (nobody was prosecuted for these murders).
> >>
> >> In his argument, an honest lawyer should ask the jury whether there is
> >much
> >> difference between what Senator Kerrey did, and what his client did,
and
> >if
> >> there is not much difference, then he should ask the jury, why should
his
> >> client be treated differently from the way Senator Kerrey is being
> >treated.
> >>
> >> The logic of McVeigh's defense should have been as follows.  He was
> >pursued
> >> by US government for multiple premeditated murders, and the honest
lawyer
> >> should have shown to the jury that US government itself is guilty of
> >> multiple premeditated murders of its own citizens, as well as citizens
of
> >> other countries, so it has no right to pursue anyone, including his
> >client,
> >> for murder.  This would be a bomb!
> >>
> >> McVeigh was a bonanza to some architectural firms: they are now making
a
> >lot
> >> of money designing buildings for US government, which are capable to
> >> withstand explosions.  Nobody is telling US government, that there is a
> >much
> >> cheaper way to make its buildings safe: to stop its criminal behavior,
and
> >> nobody would want to blow up US government buildings in the first
place.
> >>
> >> I wish to make it clear: I do NOT condone McVeigh in any shape or form,
I
> >> would not be able to live with myself, had I harmed even one innocent
> >> person.  All I am saying is: justice should be not just for McVeigh,
but
> >for
> >> all.  If McVeigh is waiting execution, Senator Kerrey, Janet Reno and
many
> >> other murderers should be his neighbors.  By the way, had Janet Reno
and
> >> others been prosecuted in due time, there would be no bombing in
Oklahoma.
> >> ---
> >>
> >> It is regretful that I was right in my previous posting: I suggested
there
> >> that all this story of FBI forgetting to forward certain documents was
> >> nothing but a spectacle.  Government was very upset that McVeigh
decided
> >to
> >> go on his terms and with a bang.  They were desperate to make him ask
to
> >> spare his life and to deny him his request.  Regretfully, he fell for
it.
> >>
> >> Let us get to the detail.  At the first news that FBI did not forward
> >> certain documents, US Attorney General cancelled execution, and send
> >> treacherous lawyers to convince McVeigh to file a motion for a stay of
> >> execution.  It is obvious that McVeigh resisted for quite a while.  So,
> >> government introduced a heavy artillery - media.  They presented to the
> >show
> >> "60 Minutes" several recently fired FBI agents, who were telling that
FBI
> >> deliberately withheld documents, and one of agents even mentioned that
he
> >> personally has produced several exculpatory documents, which were never
> >> presented to the court.  When this agent was asked about contents of
this
> >> document he said that he could not answer because of a gag order.
Excuse
> >> me, what kind of a gag order could exist for a man fired from FBI?
> >> Obviously, it was a spectacle designed for McVeigh personal
consumption,
> >and
> >> he fell for it: two days after the show, it was reported that he
decided
> >to
> >> file the motion for a stay of execution.  US government got what it
> >wanted.
> >>
> >> The next step was to arrange with the lawyers such a motion that could
be
> >> denied.  The situation was such that a proper motion could not possibly
be
> >> denied.  Indeed, it was Attorney General, who decided to order delay to
> >give
> >> lawyers time to study the documents.  Clearly, one month time is an
> >> arbitrary quantity, and should the lawyers filed an Habeas Corpus
motion,
> >> arguing only that one month time was arbitrary and not sufficient,
> >Attorney
> >> General could say nothing, because it was his initiative, and there was
no
> >> way anyone can prove that one month is enough to study 4000 documents.
> >>
> >> Instead of doing what I described above, treacherous lawyers presented
a
> >> motion not based on Habeas Corpus, but on a civil statute, claiming
that
> >> government has perpetrated a fraud upon the court.  When you make such
a
> >> statement, you should be prepared to prove it, which lawyers did not
> >bother
> >> to do.  In view of this kind of motion, it was easy for the judge to
say
> >> that there was no evidence of fraud presented, and therefore the motion
> >was
> >> denied.  In exactly the same way, as his first lawyer Jones betrayed
him
> >> during his trial, his new lawyers betrayed him with this motion.
> >>
> >> Had the lawyers really wanted to claim the fraud, they should have
called
> >to
> >> testify each and every FBI agent, who handled these 4000 documents and
> >> examine them under oath as to how it happened that the documents were
not
> >> forwarded to the defence during the trial.  They should have also
called
> >> these fired FBI agents, who participated in "60 Minutes".  A good
lawyer
> >> would have no difficulty to prove that it was a fraud indeed, but these
> >> lawyers were very well paid by the government and they did what
government
> >> asked them to do: betrayed their client.
> >>
> >> McVeigh finally understood that he has been had.  Too bad.
> >>
> >> Fabrikant
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>