I BELIEVE DEAD PEOPLE

by Michael Dare

 

I know what it's like to be in a court where the rules of evidence accept hearsay and the public or press are not allowed. (The Whole Story) Sure, it's hell on the guilty, but we wish hell upon the guilty. Since I was innocent, I worry more about the innocent. 

 

Let's look at this phrase "knowingly harbors." Harbors? No problem. Easy to figure out who harbored them. Landlords of houses or hotels terrorists stayed at would fit my definition of harboring. It's the "knowingly" that's the problem. All these people will say they didn't know. If the prosecution wants to convict them in criminal court, it's got to prove they knew.

 

Unless there is photographic or some sort of recorded proof, evidence isn't what's going to convict these people, testimony is. In criminal court, repeating what you read or heard somewhere isn't considered testimony, it's considered hearsay unless the writer of the book or maker of the statement comes in and swears to what they wrote or said. "Catcher in the Rye" can't be used as evidence against you in court without J.D. Salinger putting in an appearance, which may explain a lot.

 

The problem here is that we've got a lot of people repeating what they heard the terrorists say, and the terrorists themselves are inconveniently dead. They can't come into the court and swear to the veracity of statements they made while living. If the terrorist courts don't allow hearsay, nothing the terrorists said can be admitted as evidence. With hearsay, everything the terrorists said can be admitted as evidence as long as someone alive heard them say it and is willing to testify to the fact.

 

So let's move on to someone else in our imaginary terrorist roundup, the clerk at the hardware store who sold them the boxcutters. Undeniable that he aided and abetted the terrorists. They couldn't have done it without him, or someone like him, so naturally this clerk is called in for questioning or may already be in jail. (We don't know who these people are who are being held without bail and since the press isn't invited to the courts, we may never know) There's only one question to ask of this clerk. Did he know? What's he going to say? "No sir, I had no idea those customers were going to use those boxcutters to bring down the World Trade Centers or I wouldn't have sold it to them."

 

The normal thing to use against this clerk would be evidence (The boxcutters themselves - destroyed, the receipt - probably one in the store records) and testimony of his collaborators. Since hearsay is allowed, all the prosecution needs is somebody willing to admit they once heard one of the terrorists say "Thank Allah for the assistance of the clerk in that hardware store, he will get his just reward" and the clerk is history. There's no terrorist to cross examine to find out what was really said.

 

I've been through this. The Dependency Court that deals with child abuse cases works very much like military tribunals in that hearsay is allowed and the press isn't. Like it or not, these simple changes end up flip-flopping the burden of proof. The entire judicial system changes from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent." Doesn't seem such a biggie until you come up against the sheer impossibility of proving innocence. Proving guilt is a snap compared to proving innocence. There's a reason why juries don't say "innocent," they say "not guilty." Innocent means you didn't do it. Not guilty means the prosecution couldn't prove you DID do it.

 

A fine line?

 

Back to the clerk.  If the prosecution has evidence - a tape of the clerk in the hotel with the terrorists drinking a toast to the destruction of the WTCs, or testimony - an actual terrorist saying he was working with the clerk, then they can put on a serious case that he knowingly aided. Without it, they're stuck with people who only saw the evidence that the court and the accused can't examine because it was destroyed, or people who only heard what somebody said, all inadmissible in criminal court. Inconvenient unless you change the rules.

 

My child was taken away from me because of a supposed videotape proving abuse. The court didn't get around to actually looking at the tape for six months, during which time my son was kept in a group home in South Central Los Angeles. To the court's surprise, the tape proved my innocence rather than my guilt, and my traumatized son was given back to me without apology.

 

That's what happens when a court is given the latitude to make decisions without evidence or direct testimony. They can do more harm than good. What lost me my son for those six months was somebody's testimony that they heard from someone that they saw a tape that proved I was a child abuser. Not a tape. Not someone who saw the tape. Not a tape introduced into evidence. A third party saying they heard about the tape from someone I couldn't cross examine. Hearsay. I was finally able to prove my innocence by forcing the court to contact the person with the tape and looking at it.

 

But what if the person who supposedly made the original statement were dead? What if they crashed into the WTC? Hearsay is heinous. Hearsay from dead people is hell on earth. How does the clerk prove his innocence? Can't be done. It's only the LACK of evidence and testimony that would show innocence. Go ahead. Prove to a court of law that you didn't know something when the guy who supposedly said you knew is dead, and you can't even talk to your attorney without the prosecution listening in.

 

Is it worth it as long as enough REAL terrorists are put away? Why not err on the side of caution?

 

I say why err at all? Why not do it right and let these trials be showcases to the world about how justice works in America? You know the answer to that one.

 

There is only one reason for a court to deny access to the public and the press; they're doing something they don't want the public to know about. They've got something to hide, possibly something they're already hiding, the evidence against bin Laden and his whole network. Why does Tony Blair get to see it but we don't? Without it, conspiratorial minds will churn forever. Think it'll eventually surface? Bush just stopped the release of Ronald Reagan's papers. Think again.