🚀 go-pugleaf

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
>
>
>
>