>
> jks:
> >I'm unclear about this, there was a shell found a
> car
> >hood that was supposed to have remained there while
> >the car was driving on the freeway?
>
> Yeah, on Al-Amin's car, after a three hour drive to
> Alabama.
That's pretty fishy. In fact, its so incredible it makes you wonder whethera nyone attempting a setup would have been so stupid as to offer such a claim in evidence.
Just because
> they planted evidence doesn't mean he didn't do it,
> but it does sort of make
> you wonder.
Right, like with Julius Rosenberg. he was framed and guilty. Doesn't mean that anyoneelse who was framed was guilty. The shell argument is something that might give you a lever with the argument that the guns were planted.
The police car, unfortunately, was
> crushed long before the
> trial. Standard procedure, they said. Bummer.
Why is the crushing of the police car to the point here?
>
> >> and the guns 'found' in the woods ('he dropped
> >> the guns--sorta--right in front of me').
> >
> >Would you say the same about the guns found in the
> car
> >with the DC snipers?
>
> They found the guns a day later in the woods where
> Al-Amin was apprehended,
> so it's not the same as finding the guns with the
> suspect.
No, but it's close.
The FBI agent who
> found them just happened to have shot a young black
> Muslim man in the back of
> the head at close range in Baltimore in '95, but I'm
> sure it was just a
> coincidence he was assigned to the manhunt.
Probably it was.
>
> >> English said the assailant fired first, while two
> witnesses testified they
> >> heard pistol fire before the assault rifle
> >
> >That's nothing, anyone might be confused in the
> >circumstances, much less someone who had been
> wounded.
>
> Well, it does sort of matter if the cops shot first.
Sure it matters (as noted below), but that a witnesses who was seriously wounded might have got things mixed up in a firefight doesn't show he was lying as opposed to understandably confused.
> I think they successfully made the case that he
> had something to do with
> it,
> >> and may have known who did it, but *not* that he
> was the shooter.
> >
> >As I say, you know more than I do. But depending on
> >how much of something he had to do with it, it
> might
> >not matter if he was the shooter. You can bve
> guilty
> >of a crime under accompliance liability, e.g.,
> >conspiracy, aiding and abetting, felony murder (not
> >applicable here, maybe), though not for just
> knowing
> >who did it.
>
> He was being tried as the shooter.
Machs nichts. They don't even have to give the accomplice liability instruction in many states.
Tell me if this
> is right--I understood
> that he is under no obligation legally to say what
> he knows.
Correct, if it would tend to incriminate him.
That is, you
> can't be charged with a *crime* for refusing to tell
> what you know,
Yes.
though I
> suppose you could be locked up, say, for the term of
> a Grand Jury or held in
> contempt of court.
Not for refusing to take the stand or taking the Fiufth. If they immunized him, it would be different.
Conspiracy means you can be
> convicted for having known
> something--for example, for knowing about a bank
> robbery before it
> happens--but not for refusing to say it. Is that
> roughly right?
Conspiracy is agreeing to do something illegal. Aiding and abetting is taking a substantial step to help someone do something illegal. Merely knowing and refusing to say isn't a crime unless you haves ome special obligation to say.
> >> It was implied that he didn't take the stand
> because he didn't want to give
> >> information that might lead to the prosecution of
> another person. Which
> would be a
> >> pretty strong moral-political stand, if you're
> the victim of a frame-up,
> to not reward
> >> the frame-up machine that's doing you.
> >
> >I don't understand your point.
>
> If he didn't do it, but knew something about who
> did, and refused to give
> that information, even if it would exonerate him, in
> a capital trial, that
> means he put principle before his own survival.
> Whether the principle there
> is honor among thieves, or the principle is 'I don't
> recognize the state's
> power, only God's', or the principle is 'this system
> is so evil it's framing
> me, I will not collaborate with it in any way' it's
> still principle over
> (narrow) self-interest.
Well, there's not much doubt he's a principledperson in many respects.
Unless he thought naming
> someone else would result
> in their friends coming to kill him later.
One sees that in drug and gang murder trials where people clam up even though it means they face long sentences.
> In that instance I'd think a 'battered wife' defense
> (only in this case a
> 'battered radical') would be appropriate. 'The
> cops harassed me for 35
> years and I finally snapped.' You can see why I'm
> not a lawyer : )
>
Nah, it might be worth a try, knock down a murder charge to 2d degree or manslaughter, anyway.
jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com