Letters to the Editor
-
The arson occurred in 2001. Very few (if any) places keep video records for 6 years.
and she kept her ATM receipt for 6 years? Hmmm. It proves nothing, her boyfreind could have used her PIN to withdraw money, it in no way proves she was there.
-
@63debra
Her first mistake was going to Evergreen. Second, hooking up with a looser. Lastly, getting involved with EF/ELF.
Did she not think that someday this all may come crashing down? She had choices, she chose poorly.
Are you saying one should go to jail for choosing poorly? The rule of law should require that one be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges.
And your post illustrates why laws should be directed at specific acts, not vague generalities like "terrorism". The word carries too much emotional connotation. People should be convicted only for committing specific acts, not for falling into a category (poor chooser, terrorist, unpatriotic leftist loser, etc.).
-
@Thatboy
So when the defense points out inconsistencies in the State's argument it's only to 'distract' from the 'facts?'
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.
Yes, the cop was '100% truthful' despite 'several mistakes,' but the defendant was 'lying' because there were 'inconsistencies.' Care to define 'mistakes' vs. 'inconsistencies?' Perhaps if I'd been on the jury and heard the testimony I'd agree, but the way you've written this sounds very biased.
Mistakes?
On the citation she wrote the time she wrote the citation as opposed to the time the offense took place, a difference of 11 minutes.
She scored the straight-line-step test as 8 instead of 7, (although there were guidelines that said if you stepped of line three times that was an automatic 8).
She failed to check one of the boxes on one of the forms.
She told the defendant that if she refused the breath or blood test, she would lose her Florida driver's license for one year, but the defendant did not have a Florida license. Cop should have said "Florida driving privileges".
Stuff like that.
Inconsistencies?
She claimed she had flown that day from one of the northern most states in her work as a sound recording technician for a national cable TV network covering a boxing match at an open air location in my town. In fact the boxing match took place indoors and was a production of a regional ethnic cable TV network.
She claimed that she had refused to take the breath test because her father had told her never to take a breath test. No other explanation. Why would a woman of 46 refuse to participate in collection of evidence that could clear her of DUI charges? The jury could think of another reason that had nothing to do with honoring thy parents.
In the case in which I was a juror the sole reason why there ws no forensic evidence was that the defendant refused to give it. (The patrol car did not have video).
Bottom line is that in cases where it is simply a question of he said/she said a jury is really required to determine whether witnesses are telling the truth or lying. This involves listening to testimony, watching people all day and seeing how they react to testimony of others, applying one's own experience of life, discussing the evidence with fellow jurors after it has all been heard, looking into one's own conscience, and many other factors.
A friend of mine was once a juror in a case in which a woman in her late 20's accused her father, a physician, of having sexually abused her when she was 12.
The jury acquitted the defendant.
I asked my friend why and she said that the jury did not think the prosecution had adequately proved its case. I asked her if the jury believed the testimony of the woman. She said yes. I asked what other evidence there way, and she said none. To me this jury either did not do its job, or actually did have reasonable doubts about the veracity of the testimony.
My experience, admittedly limited to one case, as a juror leads me to believe that jurors take their responsibilities extremely seriously and do not want to go home wondering if they have sent an innocent person to jail. If you do that, then your life and theirs are irrevocably linked together.
In the Briana Waters case, the bottom line is that the jury believed she lied on the witness stand.
-
Thoughts
Well, when you retool the FBI to combat domestic terrorism, then everything looks like terror.
Also, I wonder if juries in "big" crimes sometimes feel that someone needs to be responsible, so why not the person on trial? They must be somewhat guilty, at least, otherwise they wouldn't get to trial, right? I don't know if that's the case here, but I suspect some psychologist has studied such a thing.
As far as this particular case is concerned, I really don't have enough information about the case and trial to know if Briana Waters is guilty or not, and I likely will never really know. It reminds me of a case involving a childhood friend who was convicted of murder on generally circumstantial evidence when there was hard evidence that would have required him to drive approx 100 miles at 90 mph to commit the crime, then do the same thing to complete the round trip. From what I understand, it seems really unlikely that he committed the crime, yet he's in jail for it now.
-
@CM
and she kept her ATM receipt for 6 years? Hmmm. It proves nothing, her boyfreind could have used her PIN to withdraw money, it in no way proves she was there.
I think banks have records of ATM transactions going back six years; a paper receipt should not be needed. She might or might not need to prove she was there to establish reasonable doubt; this is not as simple as you are saying.
-
@JennyLynnnF
Clearly a miscarriage of justice. The bank receipt alone, showing that Waters was 60 miles away from Seattle just 45 minutes before the explosion ought to have convinced a reasonable jury of her innocence. It doesn't sound like Waters was convicted by a jury of her peers, but rather by a jury of poorly educated Americans unfamiliar with reason and logic.
Posts like this show that poorly educated Salon readers think they know it all, when really they lack even the basic reading and comprehension skills to read and understand the first two paragraphs of an article like this:
In the early morning hours of May 21, 2001, a group of five men and women dressed in dark clothing and carrying backpacks crept close to the Center of Urban Horticulture on the University of Washington campus in Seattle. One of the intruders cut open a window of a ground-floor office; another climbed through it and placed a digital alarm clock wired to a 9-volt battery and a model-rocket igniter in the drawer of a filing cabinet. Next to the cabinet, he filled plastic tubs with gasoline. He set the timer and climbed back out the window.
Not long after, at about 3 a.m., a university security officer driving on his rounds saw "billowing smoke and flames" rising from the building.
Nevertheless Salon readers feel qualified to slander juries, and declare a miscarriage of justice, when they know nothing about the case.
Now... about Creation Science...