Re: TWA 800 - Serious thread.

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

Greg Broiles wrote:
> At 03:30 PM 9/9/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote:
> If govt. protects its "sources and methods", however nefarious, to the
> extent that the public is never asked to assent to these methods (even
> though a few of us know about them anyway), then the public doesn't
> have to become overtly cynical about what's going on.

> But the public *is* asked to assent to those methods - your chance to 
> vote on them is known colloquially as "jury duty".
> Greg Broiles                |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the 
> subject of
> gbroiles@netbox.com         |an in-court demonstration by the People
> http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt
>                             |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 
> 818,825.

I missed a lot of this being off-line for a few days. The jury 
discussion is a good one, but nowadays we have sequestering or no, 
cameras in the court or no cameras, new gag rules all the time, 
including books being published or even planning to be published, the 
"no profit" rules for convictees (or those about to be convicted), and 
don't forget the (gasp!) influential organs such as National Enquirer 
who "digitally enhance" certain photos such as Nicole Simpson, Liza 
Minelli, etc.

If there's a chance of ever cleaning up the justice system, would it 
mean a prosecution of those who promoted the Incubator Baby scam for the 
Gulf War, for example?