Wecht trial ends

[Tim Gratz]

Spitzer breaking the law possibly even including the Mann Act (a serious offense) constitutes prosecutorial misconduct? I am aware of no hint that Spitzer was entrapped.

The argument advanced by Meredith/Lemkin must be that anyone left of center should never be prosecuted for commission of a crime. Curious indeed!

[Dawn Meredith]

Spitzer breaking the law possibly even including the Mann Act (a serious offense) constitutes prosecutorial misconduct? I am aware of no hint that Spitzer was entrapped.

The argument advanced by Meredith/Lemkin must be that anyone left of center should never be prosecuted for commission of a crime. Curious indeed!

Who said he was entrapped? HE PUT HIMSELF IN THIS POSITION. Did you bother to read the article? CAN you read?

Several of my favorite members left because of you, curious that you are now back.

End of conversation. And as far as your PM to me goes, you misread that post as well. I never once said

I thought the Morely lawsuit was a slam dunk.. I said the judges seemed to know it was an important issue. Again CAN you read?

Bye TG. I have a real job to go to and no time for your pretend- to- misunderstand crap.

Dawn Meredith

A licenced attorney, overly busy at the moment and no time for fools.

[Tim Gratz]

Moderator: I thought insults were against the rules, or is there an exception if aimed at me?

Dawn, I care less about your insults. At least I normally spell correctly.

Now to the merits: Lemkin said it was prosecutorial misconduct and you said "Absolutely." Now you admit that without being trapped he knowingly broke the laws he was sworn to enforce.

And how in the world can you as an attorney agree with Peter that there is prosecutorial misconduct when the last I heard no one had announced a decision whether or not to prosecute him.

Strange indeed!

[Michael Hogan]

2:29 p.m.

Schwab is now giving final jury instructions. Jurors have elected to deliberate from 8:30 a.m. until 2 p.m. each day except for Fridays, which they will take off.

During his closing arguments earlier, defense attorney Jerry McDevitt equated the government's case against Wecht to "legal buckshot" and urged jurors to acquit his client on all charges.......

Peter must be in the courtroom.

There's some good coverage here, including a reporter that text-messages from the court for his blog:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/1...720/detail.html

[Tim Gratz]

Peter, in order to demonstrate selective prosecution the defendant must show that others committed similar acts but were not prosecuted.

I have not been following the case as you have but certainly the evidence as adduced demonstrates crimes (not to say the evidence is necessarily correct).

You claim that the "ultra-right" judge improperly disallowed evidence of selective prosecution. I assume since you make this charge you are familiar with what evidence Dr. Wecht had that others who had committed similar acts were NOT prosecuted. Can you advise what evidence there was that you believe should have been admitted?

[Dawn Meredith]

FWIW I just received an email from Cryil Wecht, thanking me for mine to him. He thanked me for my continued support, but was more terse than usual - though still hopefull.....no doubt tense due to the anxiety of both the decision to not call any defense witnesses and the wait now for the Jury's verdict....

....I certainly think that a fair look at this shows no real crimes, and selective prosecution [which was not allowed by this ultra-right Judge to be discussed in Court].

Peter:

Please tell him a lot of people are praying for him. He won't remember me- I met him at the COPA convention in '98. Told him he's long been a hero to me, took his pic. But as I said, there'd be no reason for him to remember. (It was the same night Vince Salandria gave the keynote address, the first night- Friday). I'd also had some correspondance with son Ben over the years. But none with Dr. Wecht himself. I just checked to see if Court tv was by chance covering it, but they are not. As I recall the judge (who makes all tv camera calls, said no. A lot of other unusual secret things too.

Dawn

[Len Colby]

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

From your comment about him being guilty it appeared as if you have been followong this trial? No? Yes? So, if you have and you say that he guilty, then I agree with Peter, I'd sure not want you on my jury. That's my view. But I am getting reports ON the trial from a fellow researcher In Lancaster (Jerry Policoff) so I see how absurd, vandictive and downright frightening this is. I did not mean to be harsh to you. Also it's hard to truly judge the evidence without being there. That said the articles I have read have all been bs. THis prosecution is politically motivated and they are trying to destroy the life of a great man. If you can't (won't ) see that then .....you're right to your opinion, just as I am right to mine. They are arguing over pennies here.

Dawn

You may well be right in everything you say Dawn, you are definitely 100% correct in saying you have a right to state an opinion, as do I. What I found unnessarily hurtful, and out of character, was the remark: "Pointing, just one more person to ignore here". To suggest I should be ignored because my opinion differs from your own is unwarranted Dawn. And reminiscent of our mutual "friend" Bevilaqua. Denis.

Denis,

Take it from someone who knows all too well from experience, those who offer differing points of view get personally attacked on this forum. Most members respect those with opposing view points but a minority doesn’t. Some of those who crow the most (correctly to a large extent) about the fascistic tendencies of Bush and his crew are ironically among those most likely to show similar tendencies here, doing their best to shut up voices they disagree with..

Len

[Len Colby]

Moderator: I thought insults were against the rules, or is there an exception if aimed at me?

Dawn, I care less about your insults. At least I normally spell correctly.

Now to the merits: Lemkin said it was prosecutorial misconduct and you said "Absolutely." Now you admit that without being trapped he knowingly broke the laws he was sworn to enforce.

And how in the world can you as an attorney agree with Peter that there is prosecutorial misconduct when the last I heard no one had announced a decision whether or not to prosecute him.

Strange indeed!

Tim,

Don’t expect logical thinking to come in over such an emotional issue as the Wecht trial. Much as I was a supporter of Spitzer (I voted for him three times) and don’t think his peccadillo serious enough morally or legally to warrent his resignation, I find the notion that his downfall was the result of anything other than his own poor judgment unfounded. I’ve seen no evidence, that it was a result of any sort of “prosecutorial misconduct” or campaign to “get” Spitzer. The Palast article was long on speculation and short on evidence.

As for the rules against personal attacks and insults they are very rarely enforced.

Len

[Tim Gratz]

You will notice, of course, that Peter cannot answer my question and he offers not one iota of evidence that the Wecht trial was the result of "selective prosecution". His view of the case derives, I suggest, not from facts but rather from his "world view".

Of course I agree with Dr. Wecht's position on the asassination and I admire his work on it and his courage in offering his dissenting position to the collective view of so many of his peers (in fact I once had a very brief but very pleasant conversation with Dr. Wecht in which he stated that Gov. Connally's wounds come have come from a gunman firing from the 6th floor west window of the TSBD). I hope that he is innocent and that if is innocent that justice will be done.

[Len Colby]

Wecht is a moral/ethical giant compared to you Mr. T, and on legal ethics I'll spare you the reply you deserve. Wecht has championed Truth on JFK medical evidence, much to the displeasure of the Government, and they are targeting him for it. If everyone who spent [maybe!] $4.xx in faxes to the employer they work for the Courts would be busy indeed. All your heros are not even charged for murder, pre-emptive War based on falsehoods, genocide, torture, illegal spying, lies to the Public to mislead and defraud, treason, conversion of monies of the People, and worse. Typical of the Far-Right....murder, mayham, stealing from, covert ops against the poor, middle-class, and 'others' is OK....if wraped in a false-flag and done for Empire, Oligarchy and American Myth / Religion. The Right has made a habit of going after Centrists and Left of Center for nothing but political dirty tricks...while they very often speak-out against the very sins they are involved with. When they aren't doing political / personal assassinations, the Right has been doing just about all the real assassinations.

I actually have no defined position regarding Dr. Wecht’s legal predicament. I haven’t looked into it enough. On one hand as Dennis pointed out he certainly seems guilty of various infractions, on the other I agree with Bill that the charges seem pretty petty ante. I don’t know enough about the charges against him or how people in similar situations were treated. I doubt many member’s here know enough about the latter to come to an informed opinion and agree with Dennis that most probably reached a conclusion based on his contributions to JFK assassination research. It is interesting to note that seemingly not even Wecht or his attorneys are saying he was being prosecuted over his opinions regarding the assassination or pressure from the Bush administration but rather over his feud with the local (state) DA.

http://kdka.com/topstories/Dr.Cyril.Wecht.2.381156.html

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/4051274/detail.html

My points were that:

1) most member’s will find it difficult to be objective about this case and

2) some member’s seeming unable to deal with dissenting opinions personally attack those who disagree with their views

Thank’s for illustrating both. I wouldn't be surprised if you call me a ‘clown’, ‘borg’ or Nazi as you’ve done in the past to me and others guilty of the crime of having a different POV than Peter Lemkin. Despite all you fulminations about the creeping fascism of Bush and his cronies you don’t seem much different from (leading “truther”) Kevin Barrett who called for the execution of Amy Goodman and other journalists.

“All your heros are not even charged for murder, pre-emptive War based on falsehoods, genocide, torture, illegal spying, lies to the Public to mislead and defraud, treason, conversion of monies of the People, and worse. Typical of the Far-Right....murder, mayham, stealing from, covert ops against the poor, middle-class, and 'others' is OK....if wraped in a false-flag and done for Empire, Oligarchy and American Myth / Religion.”

How the hell would you know who my heroes are? You assume I’m right wing just because I disagree with your views on 9/11 etc? In case you missed it, so do (did) Chomsky, Ed Said, Finkelstein, Amy Goodman, Ward Churchill and Cockburn among others, are we to assume they’re all closet fascists ? Are you going libel me again with the claim that Goebbels is one of my heroes?

Edited March 25, 2008 by Len Colby

[Christopher Hall]

We may get a verdict today.

I believe that the jury took the weekend and yesterday off, but that they continue deliberating today.

This should be interesting.

[Pat Speer]

You will notice, of course, that Peter cannot answer my question and he offers not one iota of evidence that the Wecht trial was the result of "selective prosecution". His view of the case derives, I suggest, not from facts but rather from his "world view".

Of course I agree with Dr. Wecht's position on the asassination and I admire his work on it and his courage in offering his dissenting position to the collective view of so many of his peers (in fact I once had a very brief but very pleasant conversation with Dr. Wecht in which he stated that Gov. Connally's wounds come have come from a gunman firing from the 6th floor west window of the TSBD). I hope that he is innocent and that if is innocent that justice will be done.

Tim, while Peter, of course, has no proof that this is "selective prosecution" the circumstances of Wecht's prosecution are indeed curious. In my experience as a newsreader, political figures guilty of similar "crimes" are usually removed from office and disgraced. I can't recall one similar prosecution.

When one reads about J. Edgar Hoover, moreover, it's clear he was guilty of far worse "crimes" (not even mentioning his blackmailing and withholding of evidence apparent elsewhere). He had his black chauffeurs declared agents so they could avoid military service, and so he could tell congress there were indeed black FBI agents. He also had his agents write propaganda books promoting the FBI and attacking communism, released them under his own name, and pocketed the proceeds. He also had the FBI exhibits section constantly remodel his home, at taxpayer expense.

Would you not agree that, if Wecht is guilty of "crimes," Hoover was a master criminal?

[Ron Ecker]

Hoover was a master criminal

And the fact that the FBI headquarters building bears his name tells us all we need to know about the FBI today.

[William Kelly]

You will notice, of course, that Peter cannot answer my question and he offers not one iota of evidence that the Wecht trial was the result of "selective prosecution". His view of the case derives, I suggest, not from facts but rather from his "world view".

Of course I agree with Dr. Wecht's position on the asassination and I admire his work on it and his courage in offering his dissenting position to the collective view of so many of his peers (in fact I once had a very brief but very pleasant conversation with Dr. Wecht in which he stated that Gov. Connally's wounds come have come from a gunman firing from the 6th floor west window of the TSBD). I hope that he is innocent and that if is innocent that justice will be done.

Tim, while Peter, of course, has no proof that this is "selective prosecution" the circumstances of Wecht's prosecution are indeed curious. In my experience as a newsreader, political figures guilty of similar "crimes" are usually removed from office and disgraced. I can't recall one similar prosecution.

When one reads about J. Edgar Hoover, moreover, it's clear he was guilty of far worse "crimes" (not even mentioning his blackmailing and withholding of evidence apparent elsewhere). He had his black chauffeurs declared agents so they could avoid military service, and so he could tell congress there were indeed black FBI agents. He also had his agents write propaganda books promoting the FBI and attacking communism, released them under his own name, and pocketed the proceeds. He also had the FBI exhibits section constantly remodel his home, at taxpayer expense.

Would you not agree that, if Wecht is guilty of "crimes," Hoover was a master criminal?

But did Hover have his live in male secretary, paid at taxpayer's expense, use a governmnet fax machine for private business, like Wecht is accused of doing?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, re your post that political officers accused of wrongdoing such as that alleged against Dr. Wecht are usually "removed from office and disgraced" rather than prosecuted, as you I am sure know this is oft the result of a bargain between the accused and the prosecutor wherein the prosecutor agrees not to prosecute if the wrongdoer agrees to "get out of Dodge". How do you know that Dr. Wecht was not offered such a deal but refused it?

Moreover, let us look back at the case of our mutual friend Richard Nixon. Is it not likely he would have been prosecuted but for the pardon?

Re JEH, I suspect we all know why no one dared prosecute him while he was alive!