posted on May 12, 2001 11:23:12 AM new
Anyone have an explanation, for how all of the "known" documents could have been read before trial? The lawyers are complaining about time restraints on the "found' documents. Why not before trial? Considering this is such a small amount compared to pretrial documents. Also it was reported there are 26 data banks of information. Hard to believe they could have read all of that material prior to trial, and plan a trial strategy, isn't it? I know, some will say 'maybe it all wasn't important'. But, if this the case, they would still have to read them to find out. Where are all of the McVeigh rights supporters? His lawyers are complaining about the FBI. Did they do right by him?
typo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by mint4you on May 12, 2001 11:36 AM ]
posted on May 12, 2001 11:54:51 AM newHard to believe they could have read all of that material prior to trial, and plan a trial strategy, isn't it?
Well I guess we'll never know, will we? McVeigh was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death without his lawyer's having full discovery. So much for due process.
And no, I don't support McVeigh, but I do believe the constitution should be enforced.
posted on May 12, 2001 12:25:39 PM newjulesy, I agree that the constitution must be followed. I'd really like to make an exception in this case though.
If the original trial is deemed a mis-trial, do they hold him and then retry him? This isn't something I'm particularly familiar with.
posted on May 12, 2001 12:53:10 PM newUpInTheHills --
I imagine, if McVeigh agrees to it, this would be grounds for an appeal of his conviction, the original verdict will be thrown out, and a judge would grant him a new trial.
posted on May 12, 2001 01:13:17 PM new
Depends if the documents appear to have any impact on the verdict. If they appear to be only minor paperwork, with no possibility of altering the outcome, the appeal doesn't stand a chance and may not even be filed. A judge will make that decision, in either event, filed or not.
The hard part for McVeigh, and his lawyers, is getting around his confessions and all of his freely given interviews, after conviction. For once, bragging will really hurt him. Like the favorite expression, what goes around, comes around. In this instance, talking to much.
typo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by mint4you on May 12, 2001 01:14 PM ]
posted on May 12, 2001 01:32:59 PM new
From the AP:
"McVeigh's defense team was handed 3,135 pages that the FBI should have provided more than three years ago during trial.
Retired FBI agent Danny Coulson, who worked on the case, told The Associated Press that many of the documents involved were generated from interviews on the day of the explosion and the day after - when field offices were chasing leads all over the world about a possible ''John Doe No. 2'' suspect.
Hardly sounds like "minor paperwork." Regardless, discovery is discovery, and the FBI had an obligation to hand over every shred of paper. Furthermore, what McVeigh may or may not have said or the fact that he is a rambling idiot is of no consequence...due process IS guaranteed, even to cretins and morons.
pesky verb
[ edited by julesy on May 12, 2001 01:34 PM ]
posted on May 12, 2001 01:50:04 PM new
As a pointed example of the abject truth of the lesson to be learned or not learned through the sage advice that "what goes around, comes around. In this instance, talking to much"
we can all avail ourselves of the ill-informed statement that
"the appeal doesn't stand a chance and may not even be filed. A judge will make that decision, in either event, filed or not"
for guidance toward an understanding of how completely foolish a person not heeding such advice can appear. For though a judge might rule that an appeal, once filed, has no standing in law, no judge will decide whether such appeal will be filed or not filed.
posted on May 12, 2001 01:56:06 PM new
Yes, definitely, we all can learn. Some do, some never do. Some enjoy correcting peoples grammar, errors in comments, language usage, etc. Rather patronizing at times. All people make errors, and put foot-in-mouth occasionally, like today. We both did. At least I admit it.
posted on May 12, 2001 02:06:11 PM new
I sure wish I knew how you manage to make that smilie look so much more sappy than anyone else does. Do you do it with mirrors?
posted on May 12, 2001 02:59:24 PM new
mint4you and krs,
What we seem to have here between you two is a failure to communicate. How about giving it a rest? If someone else's posts bother you, please make use of your ignore button.
I'm a little confused...like in the death penalty thread...remember that?
This loss of evidence in a case with so much attention makes me wonder
what happens with lower profile cases with less scrutiny...for example, on a state level. I wonder how many innocent people are executed because of errors such as this.
What if, for example, this had been an innocent person and this evidence was
discovered 2 weeks after the execution?
posted on May 12, 2001 07:55:22 PM new
I suspect that the reason this came out now was that if it had come out after the execution it would have been an even bigger embarassment. I just wonder how long the FBI knew about this before deciding to tell everyone.
I agree Helen, if this had been a much less public figure I doubt if we would have ever known.
posted on May 13, 2001 12:19:54 AM new
My 2 cents: What difference does it make if there are more documents, the man has said several times over acknowledged he did what he did.
So he did what he did.
He said so.
[ edited by Baduizm on May 13, 2001 12:21 AM ]
posted on May 13, 2001 04:01:06 AM new
Because the law has less to do with reality and justice and more to do with satisfying peoples expectations and going through the cultural motions.
It would be like asking a savage why he goes through all the production and does not just toss the virgin in the volcano? He would be tell you if you don't pound on the drums and get the whole village out to yell and dance the gods are not appeased.
When they are done the basic fact is they still waste the guy but most everyone is satisfied because "He got a fair trial."
A lot of times that does not really mean anything. A lot of people are convicted on eyewitnesses who could not reliably tell you what they had for breakfast but they will say "Yes I am sure that is the man that ran past me in the dark ally." and the jurors will nod and say "OK - good enough for me."
posted on May 13, 2001 04:53:11 PM new
IMHO, these papers COULD implicate others. I think he's willing to die without leading on to anyone's assistance.
I for one welcome these documents.
I lost 4 classmates in the bombing (Moore, OK, Class of '86) and my wife lost her childhood best friend.
I agree with you that these *lost* documents should be examined very carefully. And, I think that there is a good possibility that McVeigh could implicate others in this event. The FBI lied about the tragedy in Waco and it appears that if they are not lying in this case, they are certainly bungling the job.
I am also very sorry that you lost so many friends in this tragedy.
What bothers me about this case is this ...
if this is what happens in a case this important,
what do they do with the average joe schmoe case?
And who watches those who watch us?
Ketzel
[ edited by ketzel on May 18, 2001 07:22 PM ]
posted on May 18, 2001 07:53:57 PM new
That worries me also. I'm afraid that the average guy would never hear about this "lost" evidence.
Another thing that worries me is the possibility that the lost evidence may involve people who were involved in the McViegh case and may be involved in future bombings.
"Some of the documents in question involve witness testimony about other possible conspirators behind the blast, including one going by the name of Robert Jacques. The FBI launched a manhunt for him but failed to find anyone of that name or fitting his description and ultimately concluded he did not exist.
Critics have accused the FBI of failing to pursue leads pointing to other suspects once McVeigh had been caught."
