|
|
|
|
 |
Chapter 12: OUR RIGHTS "...NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB...’’ Excerpt from the Bill of Rights
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, makes it clear that you can’t be tried twice for the same crime "IF" the penalty in the first instance was loss of life or limb. It appears that custom and precedent alone determined that O.J. Simpson did not face the possibility of death or dismemberment in his second trial since he did not risk losing them as a result of the first trial. That portion of the Fifth says nothing about loss of liberty. Protection against loss of liberty comes next, along with the prohibition against forcing you to testify against yourself in a criminal trial or losing your life "...or property, without due process of law." "Due process" is the catch. Crap like this is what lawyers were invented to invent, and to sanctify, and to argue about interminably for fun and profit. The lawyers in our group, Judge and Matlock, had much to say about this. Though Matlock’s name inevitably pops up here and there, I don’t have his letters to show you. Matlock was the guy who equated my use of the r-word with the mentality of those who use the n-word, and demanded I delete his name from my address book. But there were two new players in the game, a woman named Kim and a guy named Phil, whose presence, along with Judge’s, had a huge impact on the dynamics of the group. It demanded a kinder, gentler Lion and Tiger —for a while. Meanwhile, the revelations I made to the group a week earlier about my Jewish uncle and the lessons of Munich were still reverberating in the background, though Trille, Tiger and I were the only ones aware of it. Trille was especially vulnerable to those messages because of the words she used in response to them. They were outrageous—out of context, which is all the OJG’s and Judge had to hear. I knew EXACTLY what she was saying and why. But she had yet to learn that she would never be able to use some words in any context without being misunderstood. In some instances, you had to go back a long way to know the full context, or you had to depend on someone else to supply it. When that someone else was a kinder, gentler Tiger, you can bet that it would have a "crazy" spin to it.
Perhaps it’s time to say bit more about Phil Rabne. Better yet, let him say it.
Well lets see... I'm 52, born in Pittsburgh, PA, raised in Ebensburg, PA and somewhat educated at Holy Name Elementary and Central Cambria High School. I went into the Air Force at age 18 serving the bulk of my tour in Chateroux, Fr. After my "air force" career was done I move to Chicago living there for about four months before moving to Dearborn, MI where I worked somewhat diligently for FoMoCo, first playing with '65 Mustang fenders then driving a fork-lift all for about four years. I then moved to Los Angeles where I abruptly changed occupations going into the social service delivery system as a orderly while working my way though college, first Los Angeles Valley Community College graduating from UCLA with a degree in Psychology in 1977. I then move back to PA with my first wife continuing to work in the social services delivery system but for a brief stint in a foundry as a Pouring Foreman, first as a Program Developer for the Mentally Retarded then as a CETA Intake Counselor. During my stint as a foundry worker I received training in Calera, AL where I met my son's mother and second wife. There is a saying that you can take the woman out of the south but you can never take the south out of the woman. So when a job came up as a Rehab Counselor working for the State of Alabama, I took it, moving here in 1985. I met my third wife about three years ago marrying her about two years ago. I now have five g'chilluns and four chilluns. I fell in with the computer crowd about four years ago when I bought a laptop. It had a monster HD( 40 megs ) but it 'ruint' me, I've not being quite right since. I enjoy computers, doing my own home and car repairs, reading and swap meets. My beautiful bride and I just finished painting our home and we are now embarked on new projects putting up new gutter spouts and other home improvements. Subj: Re: [Fwd: Re Our Rights] Date: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 8:34 PM From: Tiger To: Hhhana, Rabne, Judge CC: Trooper, Pat, Trille Paula— your points are well taken. The point is that there are many precedents in law to trying a case again, or differently, if we really feel the verdict is a miscarriage of justice. A better example of how the law works (not necessarily for the best) is the Bernard Goetz case in NY, in which the "Subway Vigilante" was acquitted of the attempted murder of four black kids whom he shot point blank. In the civil case (violating their civil rights) brought by a kid Goetz paralyzed in the shooting, the jury awarded 20 million in damages. Two different venues for this case, also. First in a white area, the second in a predominantly minority area. As Matlock says, it goes on all the time. The larger issue for me is still the inequity of opportunity and of sentencing. Simpson had to pay the bills. So did the Goldmans and the Browns. How many people can’t fight back because they don’t have the money to pursue the justice they seek? Either everyone gets the same treatment, or we change the rules. I think we agree on that. —Tiger Subj: Re: Fwd: Re Our Rights Date: 97-02-12 21:38:57 EST From: Judge To: Tiger, Hhhana, Rabne CC: Trooper, Pat (Crowe), Trille Tiger— There will never be "equality" of justice. This is sad. We can only hope when the quality of justice goes to the liberty of citizens, neither money nor race becomes a factor. Hence we have the protections of the Constitution and civil rules of evidence. Still the system is not perfect. Different segments in society have differing views of how well it works or does not work. Sometimes what is perceived is true but those who are not affected just do not notice. The reason many of these second bite trials are not heard of is that most are settled when liability is clear and the defendant has money. Often the defendant is convicted and most likely judgment proof. If the defendant is not convicted, most victims do not consider civil relief because the evidence is just not there. O.J. criminal trial was decided on credibility or shall I say the lack thereof. Also note, even though some new evidence was submitted to the jurors, the civil trial was also decided on credibility. Back to your belief that there should be some equal access which I agree with in the abstract. No attorney is going to spend substantial time and resources trying a civil case on a contingency basis unless both damages and abundant proof of liability is apparent. Not many people are going to pay Matlock to try the case on principle. Matlock is going to want to get paid. So changing the rules just will not work. What would you suggest? No relief for the injured party just because many perpetrators are judgment proof. Do you think Matlock should work for free? Hey Sandy, I bet you would love to increase your pro bono quota. Tiger this is just an imperfect world. This judicial system that we operate under is one of the best in the world. If any changes should be made, it should be in the area of whether the media should be allowed to exploit the pain of victims or the rights of the accused under the pretense of First Amendment rights when the real bottom line is dollars. Of course there are real strong arguments for a totally open trial system with cameras in the courtroom. Personally, I think cameras are not the evil but rather judges’ failure to be firm in the standards they set forth for all participants, including attorneys, the press and the participants. Ah... there I go again... —Judge Subj: Re: Rights Date: 97-02-13 00:53:29 EST From: Tiger To: Chameleon, Rabne (Philip T. Rabne) CC: All You make some very valid points, which I think can be argued from several perspectives. The people who finally brought the killer of Medgar Evers to justice, or who, in a second trial, convicted the police officers who beat Rodney King were not met with the barrage of criticism as were the plaintiffs in this trial. I would agree with your premise if it were an absolute across the board application. That is, if EVERYONE who beat the system the first time (as in the cases I mentioned) was given absolution from any further related charges. This is my argument about many discrepancies in the law, and forms the basis of my opposition to the death penalty. I recall, that when Simpson was first indicted, the DA said he would not seek the death penalty, because he could never get a jury (white or black) to convict OJ Simpson, the football hero [Editor’s note: That’s what we were all led to believe. However, the real reason may have been because the quality of evidence was so poor that O.J. should not have been put on trial in the first place]. Had the defendant been OJ’s plumber, death might very well have been the penalty for a conviction in exactly the same case. One other comment regarding the concept of guilt. Again, I think you have a good point. In this very unusual case, the charge in a civil trial was responsibility for the wrongful death of 2 people....not in an auto accident, not because of medical malpractice—but because of willful, brutal homicide. When people acknowledge the verdict, no matter how you phrase it, they are saying that OJ Simpson was found to be responsible for the murder of Ron and Nicole. The criminal trial jury verdict said that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Many felons go free on that basis. It’s the protection the law provides against the power of the state. The statement of a jury does not determine truth, it only judges the evidence as it was presented. Much more to be said, but you said it well. —Tiger Subj: Newbies Date: 97-02-13 08:58:47 EST From: Hhhana To: Trooper, Pat Good morning guys— The subject is pretty obvious; the new guys communicating with us. I have such a small screen, I probably missed a lot of the reasons they’ve become involved with us. I’m going back today and try to read anything I’ve saved from them to figure out where they stand. Good guys/bad guys. I think one of the most interesting parts is Tiger’s interaction with them. Have you noticed? Wanted to send you both a private note to make sure you were watching, but didn’t get a chance last night. This thing kept kicking me off the net. Twice, I was in the middle of a letter and the modem disconnected. Back to Tiger, she is so predictable, showing her refined side, taking little swats but nothing major. She’s a work, that one. I want to see what happens when she slams them, and we know she will. I am really not the best one to interact with any of them because I can’t print off the e-mail and have to try to run on memory, which is rated "afflicted" these days. Going to send this and find my "first" cup of coffee. My last day off. We train today, but I’m not ready to go back yet. I’ve assured everyone I’ll be on board tomorrow. We have a real busy weekend, working at least 14 hours Sat and Sun. Probably Monday, too. Then things will slow down a little until middle of March. Pat would love to hear from you today. Jasper, waiting to hear from you whenever you get a chance. Trying to keep the faith. I wish the Simpson attorneys would let us know what they have planned. Sick of watching the other team. —Paula Although I can’t show you what Judge saw on the CTV threads to occasion Hhhana’s next letter, you can probably fill in the blanks with these letters from Judge, Trille, Kim and Crowe.
The whole story about Trille’s reliance on context is in that letter. I’m sure that all of us saw it eventually, including the OJG’s. When you consider the context, you know that Trille wasn’t talking about "Germans" or "Danes" in general; she was talking about the Germans of the Third Reich who persecuted Jews, and the Danes of that era who stuck their necks out to save them. I could imagine Lion, Tiger, Bear and Bull rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of tossing back that "I hate Germans" line, until they realized that leaving it alone was their best bet. Taking it out of context would prove Trille’s point to the newbies. I had "a gut feeling" that Judge was already an OJG without the courage or the integrity to say so. I didn’t know about Rabne. I’d never heard of Kitty. Who could have known how important her voice would be to me in the days and weeks to come or how important Trille’s letter would be in making it count? More about that in Chapter 13: OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM, which begins one fork where this letter ends. For now, let’s follow another fork that begins with Kitty...
Pat wrote another letter that I accidentally erased, thinking that it was a duplicate of the one above. It was about the photographer who claimed that O.J. threatened him with a golf club and put him in fear of his life. That is the "BS" letter Hhhana is referring to here.
Perhaps you’re thinking that Pat’s characterization of Tiger as "dangerous" is a bit much. Think again. Here is another example of how the flow of conversation in an e-mail group depends on who read which letter from whom and when they read it, a group dynamic that Tiger took full advantage of with carefully targeted letters and CC’s. Trille didn’t get the preceding letter from Pat, and the people she lists to receive copies are there only because they were included in a letter from Pat the next day on another subject. Keep that in mind when you read what Trille had to say about Tiger’s letter to her. The title on the subject line was my idea.
|
Contact the author: Jasper Garrison 
Send comments/suggestions |
for Adobe PDF
version of Chapters