Conference back40::soapbox

    there are a few notes on Salvi in 20.*.  
    
    Salvi must be mad, as only a psychotic person wuld believe you savew
    lives by killing born, breathing people. the conspiracy explanation
    is that certain members of the far end of the "pro-life" movement found
    a crazy person and took advantage of him to make a statement.  

    
      The insanity defense is illogical.  We should allow a verdict
     of "Guilty, but Insane".  This would result in incarceration in
     a different facility.
    
      bb

    |"Guilty, but Insane"
    
    that's the perfect verdict, imo.  to bad it's not in effect.
    
    i used to think that salvi's lawyer's insanity plea was 
    phony.  i don't anymore.  judging from what salvi's parents 
    say about his behavior, i think the guy is schizophrenic.  
    there is a history of schizophrenia in his family.
    
    salvi's life seemed to 'change' around the age of 18 
    (characteristic of the onset of the disease).  at the time,
    his social life disappeared and he became obsessed with 
    the bible.  it was downhill from there.
    
    apparently, his parents thought about getting him help but
    were afraid of the stigma of mental illness and what it would
    mean for their son.

    Salvi is insane all right, but is he so insane that he does
    not know right from wrong?  I don't think so.  

  Z   Salvi must be mad, as only a psychotic person wuld believe you savew
  Z   lives by killing born, breathing people. 
    
    Not so, otherwise, many generals in the previous two World Wars would
    be insane.  
    
    

    
    	Jack, maybe they were REALLY MAD, possibly bordering on PISSED OFF.
    

    |Salvi is insane all right, but is he so insane that he does
    |not know right from wrong?
    
    and that's why the perfect option for a verdict would be
    "guilty, but insane".

    Great verdict!  You have my vote.

    Schizophrenic psychosis can cause a skewed version of what is right and
    what is wrong.  Watched it, seen what it can mean, was lucky enough
    that the schizophrenic I know wasn't violent toward other people.
    
    meg

    People have been saying that the "INSANITY" plea should be abolished in
    favor of a "Guilty, but insane" plea. First off that's exactly what the
    insanity plea is. It simply states that you committed the crime, but
    due to your mental state you cannot be held accountable, therefore
    guilty by way of insanity. Second, the insanity plea almost never
    works. Think back to Jeffrey Dahmer. The man was having sex with dead
    bodies and eating them, and occasionally drilling a hole into skulls
    and injecting battery acid in an attempt to create zombies. I think we
    all would agree that Jeff had some toys in the attic. He tried the
    insanity plea, to no avail. Now if he wasn't insane, who is?
    
    			lunchbox

> First off that's exactly what the insanity plea is.

The insanity plea also eliminates the possibility of your execution,
Lunchbox. "Guilty, but insane", would send you to Old Sparky just the
same. (Or whatever the going maximum penalty.)

    Lunchbox:
    
    u work at Digital, that means u r insane, right?
    
    :-)

I thought the verdict was "innocent by reason of insanity".

>I thought the verdict was "innocent by reason of insanity".

	"innocent"?  it's not "not guilty"?

    
    	Could be both, no?
    
    
    	One possibility:
    
    	Verdict is "guilty", but post-ruling ruling says "but insane".
    

    
>The insanity plea also eliminates the possibility of your execution,
>Lunchbox. "Guilty, but insane", would send you to Old Sparky just the
>same. (Or whatever the going maximum penalty.)
    
    
    	Then whats the difference between "Guilty" and "Guilty, but insane"
    
    Why would anyone plead "Guilty,but insane" is they could still get the
    chair?
    
    ed

    it's not guilty by reason of inanity.

    
    To add to .17.  
    
    	Are we talking about what the defendent pleads, or what the jury
    decides?
    
    ed

    nutcase walking!!

Well, Salvi is being tried in a Masschusetts court, and there's no death
penalty in Massachusetts, so no matter what happens, he's only going to
be locked up, and not executed, unless the Feds decide to try him as well.

/john

    thank god there's no death penalty in massachusetts.

    
    	He might be executed after he gets to prison.
    

       he may not go to prison.  if the jury determines 
       he was not legally responsible for his actions, 
       he'll go to some mental institution.  

    Some say it's easier to get by in prison than in a mental institution.

re .24:

You mean the same way Dahmer was executed?

    No, I mean at least in prison some people have their marbles. If you
    are institutionalized, you are surrounded by extremely ill people, and
    after a while you see this as normal, and even if you weren't insane
    when you went in you will be.
    
    			lunchbox
    

    
    	RE: Dave
    
    	I think you misunderstood:
    
    	It's easier to get bi in prison.
    
    
    	RE: Mike
    
    	Exactly like that.
    

re: .19, Ed

I was speaking of the latter.

    
    .28
    
    > If you are institutionalized, you are surrounded by extremely ill
    > people, and after a while you see this as normal, and even if you
    > weren't insane when you went in you will be.
    
    A perfect explanation of Soapbox.

>a metal hospital

Is this a place where people bang their head against the wall?

>The insanity plea also eliminates the possibility of your execution,
>Lunchbox. "Guilty, but insane", would send you to Old Sparky just the
>same. (Or whatever the going maximum penalty.)
    
     I'm not sure where this comes from, Jack. Are you saying that to
    eliminate the possibility of being sentenced to death, all a defendant
    has to do is plead not guilty by reason of insanity? I don't think
    that's how it works.
    
     My understanding is that the prosecutor decides whether to pursue the
    death penalty or not irrespective of the defendant's plea; indeed the
    two are essentially unrelated, at least in the legal sense.
    
     Furthermore, guilty but insane would NOT subject one to the death
    penalty as one of the SCOTUS rulings requires that one being put to
    death for a crime understand what is happening and why. Hence the
    question of whether it was legal to treat someone who was convicted of
    a capital crime (and facing the death penalty) for his mental illness
    so he could be put to death, as occurred in one case (in Kaliph, I
    think.)

As I mentioned to Ed, I don't see it as a plea, but as a finding by the jury.

    Oh, so that would be an insanity finding. Ah. Makes more sense that
    way. :-)

    
      I believe Salvi knows the diff between right and wrong.
    
    I have seen the effects of schizophrenia CLOSE UP !!!  My mother
    has an acute case of it. Has for as long as I can remember. She talks
    to people who are not there. She hears voices. She sometimes can 
    carry a conversation for more than a few minutes, but usually suffers
    from broken thought patterns. Medication helps somewhat.  BUT, she
    DOES know the diff between right and wrong.
    
       Salvi should pay the price for what he did.
    
    Jack
    

>    I have seen the effects of schizophrenia CLOSE UP !!!

Ditto. My sister was recently diagnosed after suffering with it for many
years. The fact that Salvi is ill doesn't change the fact that he pulled the
trigger.

    
    	Sounds like you've seen SOME of the effects of schizophrenia.
    	Are you an authority that can honestly say that you've seen
    	all there is to see with regards to schizophrenia?
    
    	Maybe personality #1 knows the difference between right and
    	wrong, but #2 doesn't.
    
    	[I'm starting to sound like edp ... somebody STOP me!!]
    

Shawn, do you have an uncontrollable urge to include a PGP fingerprint?
Seek professional help.

    > Sounds like you've seen SOME of the effects of schizophrenia.
    
        Ha !!!   You don't know s#$t about my life.
    
    As a child growing up around it.... bothered me deeply.  I read/studied
    about it.  Talked to the doctors about it.
    
       and that's all  I'll say about it in this opem forum.
    
    
    

Shawn, your talking about multiple personality disorder, which isn't
necessarily the same thing. My sister doesn't have multiple personalities.

      sorry for sounding so hostile.    Guess the state of our legal/court
    system  makes my blood boil sometimes.
    
        I bet I could kill someone, cop a plea ( bazzaaarrr childhood )
    and walk the way things are today !!!
    
      

    Everybody is beating a dead horse. The insanity plea DOESN'T WORK!!!!!

Yeah, you'd have to be crazy to use it.

    
    	"Doesn't work"?
    
    	Care to explain that?
    
    	I mean, maybe it doesn't work every time, but it certainly does
    	work sometimes.
    

It works very rarely.  In Salvi's case, what other defense is there?

    It works extremely rarely. You have about as much chance as saying
    Elvis Presley rose from the grave and committed the act. As I said
    before, the late Jeffrey Dahmer, after eating and having sex with men
    after killing them , pleaded insanity. If Jeff ain't sick, who is?
    
    				lunchbox
    
    PS- Now that I've given an example of where it didn't work, I think Shawn
    should give an example of where it did.

    
      It worked for the guy that shot Reagan, I believe.
    
      bb

    > You have about as much chance as saying Elvis Presley rose from the 
    > grave and committed the act.
    
    he did! he climbed down out of his flying saucer and did the dirty
    deed.
    
    > If Jeff ain't sick, who is?
    
    Shawn comes to mind...

    lunchbox, i don't think anything would have worked for
    dahmer.  his crimes were so heinous and so publicized
    that he had no chance getting off with an insanity plea.
    and besides, he wasn't a professional football player.

    
    	Dave, I can't name anyone specifically, but I know it's been
    	used.  Roy Hinckley [sp?] was mentioned, so if he was indeed
    	declared insane then there's an example.
    
    	I have a hard time agreeing that Hinckley was insane, while
    	Dahmer wasn't, but I didn't make the call.
    

Dahmer wasn't hung up on Jody Foster, though.

    > Dahmer wasn't hung up on Jody Foster, though.
    
    Nope, but I'd be willing to bet he ain't the only guy that ever wanted to
    have her (over) for dinner, though...

    
    	Speaking of Jodie Foster, I just saw Maverick, again, the other
    	day.
    
    	Schwing!!
    
    	Can't say that I support Hinckley's method of getting her at-
    	tention, but at least he didn't do this for someone like Rose-
    	anne Barr or Nell Carter.  THAT would be reason enough for any
    	jury to find him insane.
    

    At roughly the same time that Hinkley shot Reagan, a local high school
    student shot and killed one of the teachers.  The student had to be
    placed in a straight jacket most of the time before the trial because
    he would pick at his face until it was bleeding.

    Both Hinkley and the student tried the insanity defense.  The student
    (who _seemed_ more insane than Hinkley) was found guilty because he
    fled the scene of the crime ... interpretted as he knew he had done
    something wrong.  Hinkley didn't flee the scene (not that he had much
    chance to.)

    -- Dave

    i understand that the defense has switched from the insanity defense
    to the zombie defense. no word yet on how effective this may be.

A couple of questions about the guy who shot Reagan.  Is his name Hinkley or
Hinckley?  Did the case reach the jury, or was he deemed unfit to stand trial? 

    hinckley.  i think a jury decided he was incompetent.

    The jury declared him to be not responsible for his actions due to
    mental illness. (Incompetent is the term used when someone's mental
    state renders them unfit to stand trial.)

    well excuuuuuuse me!  hi mark :-)

    
      Well, mebbe he was nuts.  You'd have to be, to oppose Reagan.
    
      bb

    >     i understand that the defense has switched from the insanity
    >     defense to the zombie defense.
    
    
    	didn't I see him on the Michael Jackson "Thriller" video as the
    dude whose arm fell off?
    

    
    	Don't know if it's been said here yet, but..
    
    	"I'm not schizophrenic and neither am I."
    

    -1 oh ya, well we are!

salvi snarf!

    so this Salvi guy..... he some kind of ballplayer?

      ___                       ___                                
     /\__\                     /|  |                               
    /:/ _/_       ___         |:|  |           ___           ___   
   /:/ /\  \     /\__\        |:|  |          /\__\         /|  |  
  /:/ /::\  \   /:/__/      __|:|__|         /:/  /        |:|  |  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\  \     /::::\__\_____   /:/__/         |:|  |  
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \/\:\  \__  ~~~~\::::/___/  /::\  \       __|:|__|  
  \::/ /:/  /   ~~\:\/\__\     |:|~~|     /:/\:\  \     /::::\  \  
   \/_/:/  /       \::/  /     |:|  |     \/__\:\  \    ~~~~\:\  \ 
     /:/  /        /:/  /      |:|__|          \:\__\        \:\__\
     \/__/         \/__/       |/__/            \/__/         \/__/
      ___                       ___           ___     
     /\  \                     /\  \         /\__\    
     \:\  \       ___          \:\  \       /:/ _/_   
      \:\  \     /\__\          \:\  \     /:/ /\__\  
  _____\:\  \   /:/__/      _____\:\  \   /:/ /:/ _/_ 
 /::::::::\__\ /::\  \     /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
 \:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\  \__  \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/  /
  \:\  \        ~~\:\/\__\  \:\  \        \::/_/:/  / 
   \:\  \          \::/  /   \:\  \        \:\/:/  /  
    \:\__\         /:/  /     \:\__\        \::/  /   
     \/__/         \/__/       \/__/         \/__/    
      ___           ___           ___           ___           ___     
     /\__\         /\  \         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /:/ _/_        \:\  \       /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/ _/_   
   /:/ /\  \        \:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\__\     /:/ /\__\  
  /:/ /::\  \   _____\:\  \   /:/ /::\  \   /:/ /:/  /    /:/ /:/  /  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/  /   
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/  \/__/ \:\/:::::/  / \:\/:/  /    
  \::/ /:/  /   \:\  \        \::/__/       \::/~~/~~~~   \::/__/     
   \/_/:/  /     \:\  \        \:\  \        \:\~~\        \:\  \     
     /:/  /       \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\    
     \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/    

    re.269
    
    Wow, that was an impressive snarf!!!

| <<< Note 669.271 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

| Wow, that was an impressive snarf!!!

	If you think that's impressive....

    So...  Have they sent Salvi off to Walpole yet?

    I just noticed "Salvi" is kind of a jumble of "Silva". I know there's
    no connection, it's just something I noticed.

| <<< Note 669.314 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>

| I just noticed "Salvi" is kind of a jumble of "Silva". I know there's
| no connection, it's just something I noticed.

	Hmmmm........ 

    what are you humming about?
    

    Wishful thinking I bet.  8)

I think Salvi needs a new hairstyle.  He looks like a pixie with those silly
bangs.

  yeah.  peter pan-esque.

It's ironic cuz he's a hairdresser.

  "hey, i said 'mohawk' - not 'Moe-hack'."

    
    	Nyuck, nyuck.
    

Have I mentioned that Shoshana's babbling often sounds like "nyuck, nyuck?"
She's making progress with language -- she says "no" very clearly.

    SALVI TRIAL PEOPLE SALVI TRIAL!!

    saliva trails drool.

    Late responder here -
    
    you mentioned 'incompetence' 
    is that the same as mental impotence? 
    
    the image that comes to mind...hmm - rather Dahmeresque

    the prosecution abruptly ended its rebuttal yesterday.  Final
    arguements and instructions to the jurors tomorrow.  
    
    Wonder why they didn't call the second shrink?  I have a felling they
    now realize Salvii is a few cards shy of a full deck.
    
    meg

 Not the sharpest knife in the drawer?

    Since it's largely my fault the Salvi Note became a bottomless rathole
    before the arguments were moved, I thought I'd help out by copying an
    article from "The boston paper I would never buy but somebody left on a
    table in the caf and I grabbed it since I didn't have time to score a
    Boston Globe today".
    
    
    From the Boston Herald
    Thursday 3/14/96
    page 7
    
    
    	The fate of abortion clinic gunman John C. Salvi III will be placed
    in the hands of the jury tomorrow after both sides rested their cases
    yesterday in Norfolk County Superior Court.
    
    	The jury will have today off and will return tomorrow morning with
    their suitcases in preparation for sequestration after they hear
    closing arguments.
    
    	Prosecutors John Kivlan and Marianne Hinkle surprised Salvi's
    defense lawyers by deciding not to call to the stand two psychiatrists
    who had been on their witness list since before jury selection began
    Feb. 5.
    
    	"We were fairly surprised they did not call any of their
    psychiatrists," Salvi lawyer Janice Bassil said outside the Dedham
    Courthouse at the close of yesterday's session.
    
    	Bassil and co-counsel J.W. Carney Jr. presented an insanity defense
    against charges that Salvi, 24, murdered clinic receptionists Shannon
    Lowney, 25, and Lee Ann Nichols, 38, and wounded five others during the
    Dec. 30, 1994 shooting spree in Brookline.
    
    	In keeping with their contention that Salvi's deadly attacks were
    driven by mental illness, his lawyers called two psychiatrists-Dr.
    Phillip Resnick of Cleveland and Dr. David Bear of Wellesley - who
    testified Salvi suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, which they said
    is a brain disease.
    
    	The defense lawyers began their case Feb. 27 by calling on Dr.
    Donald Goff, director of the schizophrenia program at Massachusetts
    General Hospital, to explain the disease to the jury.
    
    	On Monday, the prosecution began its rebuttal case by calling
    Bridgewater State Hospital psychologist Joel Haycock, who testified
    that his evaluations of Salvi last spring led him to the opinion Salvi
    suffered from a schiozotypal personality disorder, which is far less
    serious than schizophrenia.
    
    	During cross-examination, Bassil made an issue of Haycock's
    education and training in comparison to those of the defense experts.
    Though licensed in Massachusetts as a psychologist, Haycock's doctorate
    from Brandeis University is in sociology.
    
    	"I was flabbergasted that the government chose to put a sociologist
    on (the stand) in rebuttal," Carney said.
    
    	Kivlan said the district attorney's office would not comment on the
    case until after a verdict, but there clearly was concern among all
    trial participants about the jury's attention span after listening to
    21 days of testimony.
    
    
    
    
    							by David Weber

    
    	Think he'll be found innocent?
    

    Such a tangled web we weave,
    When we practice.....
    
    
    to conjure up spirits that have been dead for days, evil spirits at
    that. tsk, tsk, Shawn!!!!!

    
    	Just checking.
    
    	You're getting better, Dave.
    

    I've learned how to refuse the baiting that got me into that last
    scrap.
    
    
    						lunchbox

    No, you've learned to think first and write second. That's a big step
    forward.

    Mr. Slab is a master baiter, so stay on your toes lunchbox.

    The jury is debating Mr. Salvi's fate as we speak...
    
    
    any predictions on the outcome?

    
    	Guilty.  2 counts of 2nd degree murder.
    
    	20 years.
    

    Good call, Shawn. We might agree.

RE: .389

Shawn will now change his prediction.   :)

sounds good to me.

 
Yep.

    isn' the dilema guilty by reason of insanity or simply plain old
    "you're a piece of dirt and don't have any right or business breathing
    the air we all share and we really hope there is a hell" guilty? 

    
      the jury is still out
    
      bb

| <<< Note 669.395 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

| the jury is still out

	If they partied less......

Guilty on all counts.

    
    	And what's the sentence?
    

    Sentencing is usually done at a later session.

    Guilty first degree murder.  Guilty all counts.
    

    
    	First degree?  Wow.
    
    	And why don't they do the sentencing at the same time?  No wonder
    	these cases take so long to complete.
    

    
    
    	I've never understood that either Shawn.
    

  well for one thing, they gotta give all the relatives a chance to
  come in and plead for mercy or ask for blood.

    
    	If they cared that much they would've been there for the reading
    	of the verdict.
    

    Excellent verdict!

    Salvi's lawyer is already preparing the appeal because Salvi wasn't
    allowed to testify. Quelle surprise.

	Are you kidding??? The guy is insane!!! And guilty. :-)  Finally, a
verdict that is a good one.


Glen

    I thought he wasn't insane.

    
    was he not allowed to testify or did he choose not too?? 
    
    and who refused to let him testify, his lawyer, the judge, or the
    prosecutor???? 
    
    glad he was found guilty instead of insane.  he might has a screw or
    two loose, but i didn't think he was insane.  sick, yes...
    
    

    The judge would not let him testify. He had previously indicated he did
    not want to testify, and that if he did get on the stand he would not
    allow himself to be cross examined.

    
    Isn't 1st degree murder an automatic life without parole?   I heard
    they were supposed to have victim statements at 2 PM today.
    
    

 Good.  Yes, first degree is automatic life without parole...


 

 Jim

    
      uh-oh.  I think the judge has goofed.  He may well win a new
     trial on appeal.  I've never heard of proper grounds to refuse
     a request of the defendant to testify.  Particularly, with an
     insanity defense.
    
      bb

    praps the judge made note of defendant's expressed intention to refuse
    to be cross-examined, added that to the fact that direct without cross
    would be immediate cause for a mistrial, and elected to shoot for the
    better odds.

    So Salvi has been found not innocent, right?

    
    	Would the judge allow the defendant to testify, knowing full
    	well that same defendant would refuse cross-examination?
    
    	Doesn't seem to make sense that a mistrial could be declared
    	when the defendant made his intentions very clear.
    

    
    he may win a retrial, but i don't think he'd win the trial.
    
    

The judge did not allow him to testify because he had said he was going
to talk about a conspiracy against Catholics; the judge determined that
this was irrelevant.

/john

    
    I think all the speculation woulda been moot had Salvi used the same
    judge, jury and executioner the guy in Scotland used...
    

    this judge is one cool cucumber.  ito could learn a lesson
    from her.

    This Salvi guy seems to be making a real point of trying to arrange
    a prime time prison interview (as a reward for his fame as a convicted
    murderer.)

    As I recall, he said he wanted to be interviewed by Barbara Walters
    on 20/20 when he was first arrested - he was the one who said this,
    wasn't he?  She said she had absolutely ZERO interest in doing an
    interview with him back then.

    I hope his pointed attempts at getting interviewed are blatant enough
    to keep network magazine programs from actually going through with
    such an interview.

    Put him in solitary confinement forever.  No interviews, no speech
    making, no ranting, nothing.  

>    this judge is one cool cucumber.  ito could learn a lesson
>    from her.

She learned from Ito's mistakes.

    A juror explained on WBUR this morning (via telephone) that the jury's
    rejection of the insanity defense was not caused by a mistake or by a
    failure to understand the judge's instructions.  Although her
    explanation of the law as regards insanity came at the end of a
    two-hour charge, this juror says that he and his colleagues understood
    clearly.  The necessity for a finding of insanity is twofold:
    
    1.  There must be compelling evidence of a mental disease.
    
    2.  There must be compelling evidence that said disease was largely
        responsible for the defendant's actions.
    
    The jurors all felt with no equivocation that Salvi was aware that his
    actions were wrong - hence, he could not be found not guilty by reason
    of insanity.

    Adois to him.

    Re .422:
    
    > No interviews, no speech making, no ranting, nothing.
    
    The tools of the oppressor.
    
    If we are a just society with a just government, then we have nothing
    to fear from letting dissidents speak.  Only an unjust government needs
    to suppress speech.  If a criminal is nuts, then let him rant.  Let
    others learn that he is nuts, so that he tears himself down with his
    own words.  On the other hand, if a criminal is a victim of political
    oppression, then let him rant.  Let others learn that he is oppressed,
    so that he builds himself up with his own words.
    
    Taking away a prisoner's right to free speech is an act of hatred. 
    People who do it are cruel and malicious.  People who suppress free
    speech suppress freedom.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Very nice Eric and I agree on some of your points, in principal.  We 
    aren't talking about dissidence and a political prisoners though are 
    we?  Salvi walked into a business and shot several, defenselss people.  
    This is what he was tried for and found guilty of.  I could care less
    if he kept his activities to protestations outside of clinics.  He
    crossed the line when he pulled the trigger.  
    
    If this makes me an oppressor in your eyes, too bad.  Get over it, or
    don't.  The ultimate form of oppression is not available to us at this 
    point as MA does not allow executions.  This is too bad IMO.  He was 
    found guilty.  His desire is to push an agenda.  He is not a political 
    prisoner.  He does not deserve the chance to try and make himself out 
    as some sort of martyr, further demeaning the lives and deaths of 
    the victims and their families.   
    
    Brian

    Re .427:
    
    > We aren't talking about dissidence and a political prisoners though
    > are we?
    
    The whole point of free speech is that the government cannot make that
    decision.
    
    If the government got to decide who got free speech and who did not, it
    wouldn't let dissidents have it?  It would just decide dissidents
    aren't dissidents; they are just criminals, so they don't get free
    speech.
    
    Running a free country means having the courage to let your enemies
    speak.
    
    > Salvi walked into a business and shot several, defenselss people.  
    > This is what he was tried for and found guilty of.
    
    Naturally, none of the people who fought to create the United States
    shot anybody.
    
    > Get over it, or don't.
    
    Those are not the only choices of the oppressed.  Oppress people
    enough, and they will take arms against you.
    
    > His desire is to push an agenda.
    
    A political agenda.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    |Running a free country means having the courage to let your enemies
    |speak.
    
    eric, does this apply to ordinary individuals also?
    just curious.

    
    
    edp does have a point...
    
    Take for example...
    
    Our wonderful, benevolent government keeps wanting to parole that
    Looney-Tune Sicko, Charles Manson... but every time he comes before the
    parole board, he shoots his mouth off and no matter how hard they
    (the goverment) try to let him go, he invariably gives them a reason
    not to, with his rantings...
    

... not to mention the swastika tattoo on his forehead.

    Whatever, Eric.  You choose to see Salvi as oppressed and deserving of
    a chance to rant, I see him as a murderer and deserving of an
    execution.  You more than likely will get your way, I will continue to
    be dissapointed.  

    
    I've never before heard of a judge barring a defendant from taking the
    stand. 
    
    As an aside, I wonder how long Salvi will last once he joins the
    general population at Walpole. 

Another fine example of death penalty material ...

    Daniel LaPlante was greeted with the same kind of scorn and apparently he
    is surviving.
    
 Z   You choose to see Salvi as oppressed and deserving of
 Z   a chance to rant, I see him as a murderer and deserving of an
 Z   execution. 
    
    Brian, I agree with you 100% on this.  Salvi chose to take the law into
    his own hands and hence he should pay the ultimate price for his crime.
    
    I still get a snicker out of the societal mentality though...Get this
    killer off the streets so that we may have our abortions in peace.
    
    -Jack
    

    how does the denial of an individual to speak in a court of law on
    matters deemed unrelated in that specific case constitute oppression?
    
    can someone enlighten me?
    
    Chip

    
    I don't see what Salvi did as "taking the law into his own hands" --
    which phrase suggests a vigilante-style response to a crime that's
    gone, or is going, unpunished.
    
    Salvi is nothing but a vicious, twisted, murderous guttersnipe.
    
    
    
    

    Re .432:
    
    > You choose to see Salvi as oppressed . . .
    
    No, I do not, and I did not write that.  You don't understand:  It
    doesn't matter if Salvi is oppressed or not.  The rule an honest
    government follows is this:  You let people speak.  You don't decide if
    they are oppressed or not.  You just let them speak.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .437:
    
    > how does the denial of an individual to speak in a court of law on
    > matters deemed unrelated in that specific case constitute oppression?

    It is wrong because, regardless of what the judge "deems" to be
    unrelated, the JURY might have deemed otherwise.  It's one thing to say
    that any ordinary witness has nothing relevant to say, but it is
    inexcusable to say that the accused has nothing relevant to say.  No
    court should ever forbid the defendant from testifying.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >There was a story on the news this morning about the reception Salvi
    >has waiting for him at Walpole. A prison guard overheard inmates
    >state that Salvi should be put before a firing squad.
    
    Can you say Jeffrey Dahmer?
    

    Ok, fine - so the government allows this Salvi guy to give all the
    interviews he wants.

    None of the major networks are required by law to give him his 
    15 minutes of prime time interview fame.  Barbara Walters said
    months ago that she had no intention of interviewing him (after
    he stated that he wanted to be interviewed by her.)

    After the verdict was read, he stated his POLITICAL views as if 
    he was trying to sell himself to network television as a celebrity
    who is willing to express his political views to fascinated Americans.
    He looked right into the court room camera when he talked about being
    interviewed.  It was creepy as hell.
    
    His political views don't mean <bleep>.  He's a piece of crap who
    doesn't deserve another minute of national attention.  I hope the
    network television magazine shows agree enough to keep him off their
    TV shows.

    
      Governor Weld's office announced that he will introduce legislation
     to eliminate "Not Guilty by reason of insanity" in Massachusetts,
     substituting "Guilty but insane".  Several other states have done
     so already.  Basically, you get the same sentences as plain "Guilty",
     but they put the loonies together by themselves.
    
      bb

    
    	Maybe he figures he's got just as much right to an interview as
    	that OTHER double murderer.
    

I heard this AM that due to his having been found guilty to murder in the 1st,
that automatically starts the wheels in motion for an appeal, by law, in the
PRM.

Where do you people find these legislators, anyway?

    
    	Cape Cod, Newport, and places like that where they've been get-
    	ting way too much sun for way too long.
    

    newport is in massachusetts?

    
    jack, what i heard what that, because salvi was found guilty of first
    degree murder, it automatically meant that the case was going to be
    reviewed by the supreme court...not that an appeal was automatically
    started...
    
    

    
    	RE: Bonnie
    
    	Does it have to be?  I don't think so.
    

    massachusetts legislators don't have to live in massachusetts? 

    
    	Maybe they do, but they don't have to come from Massachusetts
    	originally.
    

          <<< Note 669.443 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
>                                 -< good idea >-


	A better idea might be a proposal to reinstate the death
	penalty in the Commonwealth.

Jim

    
    I agree Jim...
    
    It makes me angry thinking that someone like Charles Manson is using up
    good air and food...
    

    charles manson in jailed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

    
    
    >charles manson in jailed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
    
    If'n he was, he'd surely be out by now... no matter how much he ranted
    and raved... the PRM woulda found some "humane" reason to let him go...
    

    
      re, jim P - Weld proposed that also, but the overwhelmingly
     Democratic "Great and General Court" - our lower house, defeated it.
    
      bb

    .455
    
    andy, that's iguana guano and you know it.  salvi will
    rot in jail, just as desalvo did.  the high profile ones
    never get out.

    
    
    Bonnie, dear...
    
     I ain't talkin about Salvi and Desalvo
    
    If'n you check the Left Coast state of Calooneyfornia, you'll see that
    Charley was convicted afore they had the "no chance of parole" schtick.
    
     All this bozo had to do was keep his mouth shut and "act" sane and he
    woulda been out lickety-split...
    
     That's all I meant... in context, if he was in the PRM at the same
    time-frame, he woulda been out.. no doubt in my mind...
    

    RE: .458  Andy

    > All this bozo had to do was keep his mouth shut and "act" sane and he
    > woulda been out lickety-split...

    The other Manson family members involved in these murders have been
    acting 'sane' for decades (including expressing deep remorse for what
    they did and going to college in prison, etc) and they are all still
    behind bars.

    The other family members also denounce Charles Manson now.  It hasn't
    helped, so far.  They're still in prison (where they belong, IMO.)

    
    Then what do the words "parole hearing" mean to you??
    

    
    Charles Manson would not have been paroled if he'd acted 'sane'
    during his parole hearings.
    
    The rest of the family has been acting 'sane' for decades during
    theirs, and they are all still behind bars.

    
    
    >Charles Manson would not have been paroled if he'd acted 'sane'
    >during his parole hearings.
    
    
    Mighty big assumption on your part. How do you know that? He was a
    fairly model prisoner except for his rantings and ravings in front of
    the board...
    
     What other reason do you believe would cause him to be denied parole
    when he was up for it?

Charles Manson is a high profile convict.  Just as Sirhan Sirhan will never
be paroled, Charles Manson will never be paroled regardless of his behavior.
There may be prisoners who've committed crimes as heinous as Manson's who
_will_ be paroled.

    
    Wasn't Calley out after four years?

That's different.  He killed foreigners.

    besides, he was kinder gentler when he got out.

    RE: .462  Andy

    >> Charles Manson would not have been paroled if he'd acted 'sane'
    >> during his parole hearings.
        
    > Mighty big assumption on your part. How do you know that? He was a
    > fairly model prisoner except for his rantings and ravings in front of
    > the board...
    
    Some of the other Manson family members in prison for these murders have 
    been extremely model prisoners.  They are still behind bars.

    Charles Manson is considered to be the mastermind of these murders,
    which makes him even worse than the drugged up kids who committed
    the murders.

    > What other reason do you believe would cause him to be denied parole
    > when he was up for it?

    Sharon Tate's sister (who was 10 or 12 years old at the time of the
    murders) goes to all the Manson family parole hearings to give a
    renewed victim impact statement about the murders.  Some of the original
    members of the prosecution team also go to these hearings to argue
    against parole.

    Sharon Tate's sister bears a striking resemblance to her murdered
    sister.  She makes a very effective speaker at these hearings.
    When the last parole hearings came up, I watched a good portion of
    the proceedings for two Manson family members.  They didn't have
    a prayer of getting paroled at those hearings and they seemed to know 
    it.

    The crimes are too heinous and too famous for being too heinous.

    
    >Charles Manson is considered to be the mastermind of these murders,
    >which makes him even worse than the drugged up kids who committed
    >the murders.
    
    
    	Says you.  Conspiracy is 1 thing I'll never claim to agree with
    	as far as severity of sentencing.
    

    besides, manson never picked up a football in his life.

    RE: .468  Shawn

    >> Charles Manson is considered to be the mastermind of these murders,
    >> which makes him even worse than the drugged up kids who committed
    >> the murders.
    
    > Says you.  Conspiracy is 1 thing I'll never claim to agree with
    > as far as severity of sentencing.

    Well, I thought Charles Manson was convicted of first degree murder
    (not 'conspiracy to commit murder'.)

    He received the death sentence along with the other family members,
    so I'm pretty sure he was convicted of murder.

    He ordered the killings.  He was at the scene of the second night
    of murders - he tied up the victims and told them they wouldn't be
    hurt (to keep them calm.)  He wanted to show his zombies how to keep
    things from getting as chaotic as they'd been the night before.

    He was considered to be a murderer, not just a conspirator, as I recall.

    Manson was also implicated in a number of other murders (where he
    was accused of pulling the trigger himself), but these cases were
    not pursued because they already had the death penalty for him
    and the other family members.

    (Also, the victims were 'friends' and former members of the Manson
    family, so the cases were not as pressing as these much more famous
    'stranger' murders.)

    I saw an interview with two of the three main women who were involved
    in the trial.  You would never think of them as murderers at all.  Kind
    of like they woke up from a bad nightmare and incurred the wrath...but
    asked themselves what would have ever possessed them to do such a
    thing.  They seemed to act as though they were in there...and deserved
    to be in there.
    
    

    Something else interesting about the second set of murders...

    The Manson family had a practice of breaking into people's houses
    while they were asleep - they called it something like 'creepy
    crawly' into people's houses.  They would steal things or simply
    move things around.

    They had already done this in the LaBianca home, so they were 
    familiar with it.  I think this may have been one reason why
    they chose to commit murders in this particular house after the
    Tate murders.

    The Manson family members who were convicted of first degree murder
    for the Tate/LaBianca murders were ALL sentenced to death.
    
    It's going to be very hard for any of them to get out of prison,
    even though they keep coming up for parole.

re: charles manson parole meetings


	can't they just phone this one in?

    
    	Suzanne, if I remember correctly, Manson was never convicted of
    	actually committing a murder.
    
    	And if they were all sentenced to death, why are they all coming
    	up for parole time and again?  Did "death" mean something else at
    	the time of the writing of the Constitution?
    

    Shawn, Manson was indeed convicted of first degree murder, as I recall.
    I'm sure he was sentenced to death along with the others.

    Their death sentences were overturned because the death penalty was 
    temporarily overturned in California.  They were removed from death
    row when this happened.

    Later, the death penalty was reinstated, but it was too late to put
    these murderers back on death row.

    
    	So let me try and word this correctly:
    
    	Manson might have been convicted of 1st degree murder, but he
    	didn't personally commit a murder to "earn" the charges.
    
    	He said "kill them", they did, and he got charged just as they
    	did.  The same for Pam Smart, although on a smaller scale.
    

    and as far as i know, manson has never been to newport.

    
    Correct - Charles Manson was convicted of first degree murder (not
    'conspiracy to commit murder') for the Tate/LaBianca murders.

    He was (quite justifiably) sentenced to death along with the others
    who were also convicted of first degree murder in these murders.

    They were all convicted of the same things, and sentenced to the
    same punishment:  death.

    
    	But why was he convicted of 1st degree murder if he didn't do it?
    

    Shawn, he masterminded the murders.  He gave the orders for these
    murders to be committed.  He had his zombies thrust the knives and
    pull the triggers, that's all.

    The prosecutors were able to prove to the jury that Manson had a
    bigger plan behind these murders, and that he got some of the other
    family members to carry out his plan.

    The jury was convinced.  They convicted Manson of first degree murder.

    
    	Do I disagree with the guilty verdicts of murder for Manson and
    	Smart?  Yes, I believe I do, since that's what I said 5-10 replies
    	ago.
    
    	Would I have gone along with a much lighter sentence of "conspiracy
    	to commit murder" for both of them?  Probably, but I have no idea
    	what a "fair" sentence would be for that charge.
    

    Shawn, remember 'Helter Skelter'?  This was the song that Manson
    thought was directed by the Beatles to HIM (personally).

    His plan was to commit some very grisly murders and then plant
    wallets and other evidence in black neighborhoods so that the
    whites would believe that blacks were killing them (and engage
    in a race war.)  Manson and his family would hide underground
    during this war, so they wouldn't be hurt.

    Manson believed that the blacks would win such a war and that
    they would make Manson KING (or whatever) because he'd be one
    of the only white men left.  (Manson believed that one white
    man would be the natural ruler of a country filled with black
    people.  He was quite the racist.)

    Nutty as hell?  Yes.  But this was his plan and the prosecutors
    were able to prove to the jury that this was why the Tate and
    LaBianca murders were committed.

    Shawn, your disagreement is with our legal system, then.

    In this country, people who ORDER murders can be convicted of first
    degree murder even though they hire (or cajole) someone else to do it.

    You asked me how he was convicted of first degree murder and I explained
    it to you.

    
    I am relieved to hear that the Dedham jury convicted Salvi.
    He was a murderer, pure and simple. Nothing justifies his 
    violence. He is not mentally ill, just another miserable fanatic.
    
    For all those pro-life folks, it always amazes me how much they
    obsessed over the fetus and yet no one has come forward to actually
    say, "I'll adopt this baby and will clothe, feed, care and educate
    it for the next 18 years". 
    
    Wouldn't it be just wonderful to get each and every pro-lifer who protests
    and acts up, to sign on the dotted line that s/he will adopt AND parent 
    one child to adulthood??
                          
    
    
    

>    Wouldn't it be just wonderful to get each and every pro-lifer who protests
>    and acts up, to sign on the dotted line that s/he will adopt AND parent 
>    one child to adulthood??

What a shame that /john is busy tonight. I'm sure he has a pompous canned 
response for this.

>    For all those pro-life folks, it always amazes me how much they
>    obsessed over the fetus and yet no one has come forward to actually
>    say, "I'll adopt this baby and will clothe, feed, care and educate
>    it for the next 18 years". 

Exqueeze me?  What do you mean "no one"?  Speak for yourself.  Pro-life
people adopt babies all the time, and pro-life people have posted right
in this conference plenty of information about adoption agencies.
    
>    Wouldn't it be just wonderful to get each and every pro-lifer who protests
>    and acts up, to sign on the dotted line that s/he will adopt AND parent 
>    one child to adulthood??
                          
Since there are currently over a million couples waiting three to four years
to adopt children, I'd say this is not a problem.

And before you point out that there's a much shorter wait for minority babies,
remember that in many states (Massachusetts being one of them), white couples
may not adopt minority babies.

/john

    somewhat true Eric, but I know that you understand that in a court of
    law it is not the jury's duty to make those decisions.
    
    that is U.S. law and authority granted the judge, not our peers simply
    because the general "peer" population is not equipped to make those
    decisions.

    ...and Shawn, anything less than 1st degree for Manson would have
    prompted legislation to be enacted to prevent society from conspiracy
    of stupidity.
    
    my $.02 of course...

    >The other Manson family members involved in these murders have been
    >acting 'sane' for decades (including expressing deep remorse for what
    >they did and going to college in prison, etc) and they are all still
    >behind bars.

     Some are and some aren't. Linda Casabian, for one, was released in the
    80s.
    

    
      My sister adopted.  She had no chance to get a healthy American
     baby - the waiting list is many years.  All she could have gotten
     was special needs.  Her husband was willing to adopt, but refused
     the special needs.  He felt their marriage might not survive it.
     There are, indeed, millions of couples waiting to adopt.
    
      They, like several others I know, went overseas for their daughter.
     It cost them over $20K, out-of-pocket.  (Chinese girl).  And that low
     price was partly because his employer helped and they chose a less
     expensive country.  Though malnourished, their daughter was healthy.
    
      We have another couple as close friends who have adopted twice, Peru
     and Paraguay.  It cost a total of $50K for two healthy boys.
    
      bb

    
    $50K?????
    
    good grief!  couldn't they have waited until a baby yard-sale came up
    or something?????
    
    
    To think, all you have to do in the UK is ask and they give you a baby.

>And before you point out that there's a much shorter wait for minority babies,
>remember that in many states (Massachusetts being one of them), white couples
>may not adopt minority babies.

This is simply not true.  Social workers may discourage interracial adoption,
but a recent federal law prohibits states from banning it.

>      My sister adopted.  She had no chance to get a healthy American
>     baby - the waiting list is many years.

It depends how much you're willing to spend.  I believe it's possible to
get a HWI within a year for about $25K.
    
>      They, like several others I know, went overseas for their daughter.
>     It cost them over $20K, out-of-pocket.  (Chinese girl).  And that low
>     price was partly because his employer helped and they chose a less
>     expensive country.  Though malnourished, their daughter was healthy.
>    
>      We have another couple as close friends who have adopted twice, Peru
>     and Paraguay.  It cost a total of $50K for two healthy boys.

We adopted two toddlers (basically healthy except Dina's deaf) from Moldova.
I figure our costs were $40-50K.  We should soon be getting DEC's adoption
benefit (up to $3K per kid, fully taxable).  BTW, DEC falls in the middle
of the pack at this rate (IBM and Microsoft offer $5K, Xerox $3K, HP and
AT&T $2.5K).

    
    	Hear that, Deb?  For only $25K, you too can have your very own
    	screaming little rug rat.
    

    
    AND I'd get money from Digital, and a tax deduction?  Whatta deal!
    
    Where do I sign?!
    

   <<< Note 669.476 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448" >>>

    
>    	Suzanne, if I remember correctly, Manson was never convicted of
>    	actually committing a murder.
 
	Manson was convicted of first degree murder, even though he never
	set foot in either the Tate or LaBianca homes.

>    	And if they were all sentenced to death, why are they all coming
>    	up for parole time and again?

	The Supreme Court overturned every (effectively) death penalty statute
 	after Manson and Co. were sentenced. Their setences were automatically
	changed to "life", but California did not (may still not?) have a 
	"life without parole" setence. So periodically their cases come up
	for parole review. One, maybe two, have actually been paroled ( I was
	living in New Hampshire when one of the women came home from prison).

Jim

    >One, maybe two, have actually been paroled ( I was
    >living in New Hampshire when one of the women came home from prison).
    
     Linda Casabian

        <<< Note 669.500 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "contents under pressure" >>>

>     Linda Casabian

	Yep. Couldn't remember the name.

Thanks

Jim

    Is she the one that called herself Sexy Sadie?

    
    	The girl who played her in the movie was kinda cute.
    

    Linda Casabian was never sentenced to death, though.  She wasn't
    convicted of first degree murder.

    Although she was at the scene of the Tate murders (at least), she did
    not stab or shoot anyone.  She testified for the prosecution about
    the family and the murders (and her testimony was crucial to their case.)

    The prosecution needed to make a deal with at least one family member
    and she was the only one at the scene who did not hurt anyone.  She was
    also fairly new to the family.  She moved in with two small children 
    from her marriage.  She was sent along for the ride on the Tate murders,
    but the prosecution didn't consider her to be involved in what they were
    doing.

    Her sentence was fairly light.

    As I recall, Charles Manson DID go into the LaBiancas' house on the
    night of the murders.

    He was very critical of the Tate murders because they had to chase
    people all over the lawn to stab and shoot them.  Manson said that
    they never should have made it clear to their victims that they
    planned to kill them (because then the victims have nothing to lose 
    by trying to run all over the place to get away.)

    So Manson went into the LaBianca house to tie them up and tell them
    that they wouldn't be hurt (so they would remain calm.)  Then he left
    the house and took the car, which left the others to go into the house 
    to kill the LaBiancas and hitchhike home afterward.

    
    	Didn't Sadie admit to at least 1 of the murders, but maybe only
    	to a fellow prisoner?
    
    	Or did the movie take certain "liberties"?
    

    Shawn, "Sexy Sadie" was Susan Atkins, not Linda Casabian.

    Susan Atkins not only admitted to stabbing Sharon Tate to death,
    she also admitted to having drunk Sharon's blood.  (This is why
    they sometimes referred to Susan Atkins as 'the vampira' in
    commentaries about the trial.)

    Susan Atkins was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced 
    to death.  She's now a born again Christian.

    Linda Casabian is someone different.  She was not convicted of
    first degree murder nor sentenced to death.

    
    	Oops, thanks.
    
    	It's been awhile.
    

    Shawn, perhaps your confusion was caused by the fact that Susan Atkins
    was originally considered as a prosecution witness (after she admitted
    killing Sharon Tate.)

    The prosecution never felt comfortable giving her a deal, though, so
    they were happy that Susan Atkins later returned her loyalties to
    Charles Manson.

    Linda Casabian hadn't stabbed or shot anyone, so she was a better
    choice for the deal.

    suzanne, did you write a thesis on this case!!!??  :-)

    No, I read the book 'Helter Skelter' which was written by the main
    prosecutor in the case - (I can't remember his name, though.)  :/

Vincent Bugliosi.

    My Cousin Vinnie.

    Kasabian......
    
    Vince Bugliosi's prosecution of Manson et al was brilliant.  He was
    told by his peers that he would never make a conspiracy charge stick
    against Manson; he proved them all wrong.
    
    Shawn, Manson was sentenced to death (sentence commuted) just like
    the others because as Suzanne mentioned he "masterminded" the entire
    plot.  Other states have similar laws even for defendants who "drove
    the car" etc.  If you're an accessory to a felony where someone dies,
    you are charged as if you committed the deed yourself.
    
    Re:  Salvi not being allowed to testify......
    
    I disagree this should have caused a mistrial; OJ didn't testify because he
    didn't want to undergo cross-examination.  I believe the law in most
    states stipulates that if a defendant takes the stand (even if he
    considers that act as being in his own defense) then they open themselves
    to cross-examination.
    
    Salvi wanted it both ways; he wanted to testify but not submit to
    cross.  He couldn't have it both ways.  There was no attempt to
    suppress Salvi from talking, he just wanted to bend the law to suit
    himself; IMHO this makes it quite clear that this guy was crazy like
    a fox.  In Georgia a defendant is allowed to make a statement to the
    court AFTER a verdict is in; perhaps this is where Salvi could have
    made a statement to exercise his freedom of speech.
    
     

    
    	I believe it's a 5th Amendment issue, where you have the right
    	to invoke the 5th ... but you can't turn it on and off at your
    	leisure.  You either say nothing or you open yourself up to
    	any/everything.
    

    
    	And the conspiracy charge is still a bunch of crap no matter
    	how many times you explain it to me.
    
    	Who's the guy that wrote the book that Timothy McVeigh read in
    	order to learn how to construct a bomb?  Should he be charged
    	with conspiracy in 168 counts of 1st-degree murder?
    

�          <<< Note 669.413 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
�                              -< mistrial likely >-
�
�    
�      uh-oh.  I think the judge has goofed.  He may well win a new
�     trial on appeal.  I've never heard of proper grounds to refuse
�     a request of the defendant to testify.  Particularly, with an
�     insanity defense.
�    
�      bb

      The defendant was asked in court with his lawyer present if he wanted
   to waive his right to testify.  He did so.  He wanted to change his mind
   the next day. Too bad.
kb

    Shawn,
    
    Will you please post your home address so that if and when Charlie 
    Manson ever gets paroled we can direct him to your neighborhood to
    live?

    RE: .518  Shawn

    > And the conspiracy charge is still a bunch of crap no matter
    > how many times you explain it to me.
    
    It's simple.  If someone decides to murder another person, it doesn't
    matter if they use a gun, a knife or another person (with a gun or
    a knife) as a weapon.  If the person orders it to happen by paying for 
    the hit or by talking someone else into doing it for some other reason,
    the person is responsible for the murder.

    > Who's the guy that wrote the book that Timothy McVeigh read in
    > order to learn how to construct a bomb?  Should he be charged
    > with conspiracy in 168 counts of 1st-degree murder?

    If the guy called Timothy and said, "I'll give you a million dollars
    to blow up the Federal Building for me", then he would have been charged.

    Hitler himself didn't kill millions of people.  He gave the orders for
    these murders to occur, though.  If he'd been caught after the war,
    you better believe he would have been put to death for war crimes
    (and rightly so.)

    WWN This week: Manson says there's NFW he'd live near the Raging Slab.
    

    
    >If the person orders it to happen by paying for 
    >the hit or by talking someone else into doing it for some other reason,
    >the person is responsible for the murder.
    
    
    	"Orders it to happen"?  Like Pam Smart "ordering" that teen to
    	kill her husband?  What'd she use for payment ... her body?
    

    
    	Mark, that's what I'm saying.  What crime did he commit?  None,
    	as far as I can tell.  If conspiracy were deemed a crime, but
    	not punishable to the extent that the actual crime would have
    	been, then I could agree that SOME punishment were deserved,
    	but definitely not the same punishment that the murderer gets.
    
    	And I'm familiar with the wacko who threatened to kill the
    	president.  I believe he's from my town.  8^)  [Let me rephrase
    	that ... I'm familiar with the situation, but I don't know the
    	wacko personally.]
    

    Shawn, if you want to make it a much smaller offense to hire someone
    to commit a murder for you, then you're asking for a much more lucrative
    'murder for hire' business.

    If the one who pulls the trigger takes the big legal risks, then this
    person would be able to ask for a lot more money (because, under your
    proposal, the person who ordered the murder would be able to have as
    many people killed as he/she could afford without being under much of
    a legal risk at all.)

    This isn't the way our system works, nor is it how I'd like to see it
    work.  Your mileage may vary.

    Think of how serious murder is. We're talking about the extinguishing
    of a life here. Anybody who has a hand in somebody else's death should
    be punished to fit the magnitude of the crime. Conspiracy to defraud a
    company is one thing, but something as final as murder is another.
    
    						lunchbox

    If people who order murders didn't face much of a legal risk for doing
    so, then rich people could simply have all their competitors killed as
    part of their business strategy (the way some mob organizations have
    been doing for decades, anyway.)

    It would be a matter of 'survival of the richest'.

    Luckily, our system does hold people responsible for murders even if
    they hired someone else to pull the trigger.  This is as it should be.

    If Suzanne Conlon owned a resteraunt I would dine there.

    Why, thank you.
    

    
    	What he actually meant, Suzanne, was that if you're not doing
    	anything tonight then he'd love to rumple your sheets.
    

    >  What he actually meant, Suzanne, was that if you're not doing
    >        anything tonight then he'd love to rumple your sheets.
    
    and steal your heart.

    I don't know where that came from. I saw a bunch of your replies and I
    was going to say I would vote for you if you ran for president but this
    is an election year so I just said the first thing I could think of.
    Probably because I'm hungry. The whole murder/conspiracy thing was
    getting a little too stern, IMO, so a nonsensical reply on my part
    probably wasn't such a bad thing.

    I don't want to rumple Suzanne's sheets!!!!! I hardly know her!!!! It
    really was an innocent reply, honest!!!!

    
    >but this
    >is an election year so I just said the first thing I could think of.
    
    
    	Dan Quayle used to do that, too.  Please learne from his mistakes.
    

    >              <<< Note 669.534 by CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX" >>>
    >                            -< Shawn read too deep >-
    
    I will let the above title stand on its' own merits.
    
    > I don't want to rumple Suzanne's sheets!!!!! I hardly know her!!!! It
    >    really was an innocent reply, honest!!!!
     
    	got some waterfront property in Phoenix to sell me too?
    

    RE: .533  Lunchbox
    
    > I saw a bunch of your replies and I
    > was going to say I would vote for you if you ran for president but this
    > is an election year so I just said the first thing I could think of. 
    
    Well, thank you again, Lunchbox!
    
    I'm not eligible to run for President because I wasn't born in this
    country, but it was nice of you to suggest you'd vote for me, anyway. :)

    Well, I would vote for S. Conlon for Prime Minister or Dictator or
    whatever they have where you are from!!!! Certainly I enjoy foreign
    cuisine.
    
    						lunchbox

    Oh, I'm an American citizen.  My birth was registered at an American
    Consulate and I fulfilled the requirements for American citizenship 
    during my childhood.

    Well, then I would vote for Suzanne Conlon for president of the Glee
    Club or something, and would patronize any business venture you partook
    in!!!
    
    
    
    						lunchbox

    Well, thanks again, Lunchbox!
    
    (Your support for my notes today is a lot more refreshing than the
    usual "Oh my God, I actually agree with something SHE said today
    - now I'm going to have to go rethink my whole life" notes I sometimes
    get.)  :-)

    >                    <<< Note 669.542 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
    
        Well, thanks again, Lunchbox!
    
        (Your support for my notes today is a lot more refreshing than the
        usual "Oh my God, I actually agree with something SHE said today
        - now I'm going to have to go rethink my whole life" notes I
        
    
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Hey, I told L'box to make your day, don't I get a thanks too?
    (not really, I'm just fishing for cheap compliments)..
    

    Well, I still have a few left:
    
    	Thanks to you, too.  :-)
    

    you've been promoted to the top of the nice person list.
    
    be it hereby proclaimed:
    
    SPECXN::CONLON is OK.
    
    take the rest of the week off..
    

    Gee, take the rest of the week off?
    
    It's after 5pm on Friday - are you sure you want to be this generous?  :)
    

    Wow!!!! One bizarre compliment and I change the volitile Salvi topic
    into a smarmy conference like FRIENDS. One voice really can make a
    difference!!!!!
    
    
    						lunchbox

    smarmy?
    
    SMARMY?
    
    SMARMY THIS!!!!!
    
    hmmmm.. I like the sound of that. can I borrow this for a p_n for a few
    days?

    It looks kinda smarmy.....

    I think it looks OK! :)

        Hey, Lunchbox, are you trying to hit on women again over this
    decnet? Watch out - I had a grim and terrifying ordeal once thanks to
    my meddling with a Singles conference. I've learned that most of the
    people out there are so crazy you wouldn't want to get within a mile of
    them. 

    Lunchbox's girlfriend occupies his 'quality time', so I doubt he'll
    be looking to go into the Singles conference any time soon.
    

    >>  Lunchbox's girlfriend occupies his 'quality time', so I doubt he'll
    >> be looking to go into the Singles conference any time soon.
    
    I heard that you can get social diseases from looking in there.. 

    re.555
    
    ...especially a sociable guy like Ed.

    Suzanne for president of Moronica....
    
    Piece....Piece....we want Piece.......

| <<< Note 669.557 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Piece....Piece....we want Piece.......

	I suggest you hit the streets of Boston.

    No, the right reply per the Three Stooges was, "Yeah...a piece of this
    and a piece of that!"