Letters to the Editor
-
It's all about the details
And evidence that she was dumb enough to lend her boyfriend a rental car is not evidence that she knew of, or participated in, a crime. Even if she did lend him a car, could he have lied to her about why he wanted it? Oh, I don't know - men never lie to their girlfriends, do they?? None of this comes close to eliminating "reasonable doubt." It just doesn't.
No, but getting her cousin to rent a car for her and then giving him $200 cash for his trouble and then putting mileage on the car and lending it to her boyfriend are all suggestive of a pattern of secretive behavior. I don't see any alternative explanation of why she rented the car. Was her own in the shop? Is there evidence of this?
The issue of the 8:00 p.m. meeting may not be crucial to the case. If she arrived at 8:15 or 8:20 that would not have stopped her from being present at the bombing which took place several hours later. It does not seem to me that not being in Seattle at exactly 8:00 p.m. is fatal to the government case. It certainly does not constitute evidence that she was out of state at the time, or that it was physically impossible for her to be at the boming.
And again, why does the Salon article not state the nature, amount, and location of the purchase? This must have been discussed in court.
I don't think that people who have not served as jurors quite understand that these kind of points are hashed out in court ad nauseam.
In the case in which I recently served as a juror a woman swerved her car, her breath smelled of alcohol, there were empty wine cooler bottles in the car and cold ones on the seat, she failed the roadside sobriety test, and she refused to give a breath or blood test.
However the trial lasted all day and into the evening, as the defense attorney picked apart the female cop's testimony and paperwork and argued every minutia in an attempt to distract the jury from the basic facts of the case. The defendant also took the witness stand.
This is what defense attorneys are supposed to do, but at the end of the day the jury has to look at the totality of the evidence and make a decision. This includes evaluating the testimony of witnesses after one has seen them testify under direct and cross, had an opportunity to assess their reliability, body language, inconsistencies in testimony, and so on and JUDGING WHO IS LYING when there are two mutually inconsistent testimonies.
In my case we the jury had no difficulty in determining that the cop, although in many respects not a polished witness, was 100% truthful--she admitted to several mistakes--and the defendant lying--there were inconsistencies in her testimony. For example she said she had flown into town to cover a sports event at A that actually took place at B, on cable network C that was actually on cable network D, and she could not remember whether her first drink of the day was a Bloody Mary at 8:30 a.m. in the airport or on the plane!
What we also noticed was what the defense attorney omitted as well as what was included.
For example the defense attorney accepted without any question at all the cop's testimony that his client seemed nervous, but challenged ad nauseam her contention that she was swaying. Why did he not ask more questions about how the cop determined the client was nervous?
In the Waters case, clearly the jury decided that the two prosecution witnesses were telling the truth and that Waters was lying. That is the bottom line.
It is also worth noting that the jury was unable to reach a verdict on some of the stronger charges, implying that some of the jurors felt the government had overreached.
The sad fact is that since 9/11, our federal government has repeatedly overlooked the requirement for actual evidence before conviction or incarceration, not once but in hundreds of cases: that minor little detail that used to be a cornerstone of our legal system.
As above. I am sorry, but testimony of two witnesses is considered to be evidence, and you can be assured that the jury will have known that the witnesses were testifying for their own good.
Articles that summarize a case don't include all the details, and the author of the article may not have been present in court. As I said in a previous letter, this article sounds like a final argument for the defense.
Why this stuff about how she does not look like a terrorist and how her hair was tied back with a rubber band? Defense propaganda.
Even the most naive juror would realize that when a defendant comes to court, she will change her green hair, take the rings out of her nose, and try to hide her "fuck the police" tattoos.
In the interest of balance, I would also want to hear the case for the prosecution.