Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

CLARKE Chamberpot award

Expand Messages
  • macs_bac@webtv.net
    Trial and Tribulation Jay Bryant March 30, 2004 Today s Richard Clarke Award for Stepping in your Chamberpot goes to Richard Ernest, a ballistics expert who
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Trial and Tribulation
      Jay Bryant
      March 30, 2004
      <>
      Today's Richard Clarke Award for Stepping in your Chamberpot goes to
      Richard Ernest, a ballistics expert who testified in the trial of Jason
      Williams, one of the several NBA players in trouble with the law.
      Williams faces 55 years in prison if convicted of aggravated
      manslaughter in the death of his chauffeur, but claims he didn't pull
      the trigger – that the gun went off by accident.
      Williams' lawyers put Ernest on the stand to give expert testimony that
      it was possible for the gun to go off spontaneously if a tiny wood chip
      has somehow clogged in the trigger mechanism. And so he did, saying it
      could have happened just like that. When the prosecution got its chance
      at cross-examination, Ernest was asked if he had performed any
      experiments to test his theory. Uh-oh. Seems he had indeed, taking a
      similar gun to a firing range and painstakingly, using "a stereo
      microscope and fine tweezers" inserted a chip into the inner workings.
      But try as he might, he was never able to get to the gun to go off
      spontaneously, without pressing the trigger. Williams story is that his
      hand wasn't on the trigger, though eyewitnesses say otherwise.
      You've got to give the defense kudos for chutzpah, though. In order to
      show the jury just how their theory worked, they prepared a little
      animated film, in which the animated gun actually does go off by itself.
      Where the heck do they think this trial is being held, Toontown? Anyway,
      the judge told them they couldn't show jurors the Roger Rabbit version
      of the gun going off, on account of because Williams' twelve peers might
      actually think that when they saw the gun go off on its own in the film,
      it meant the gun could actually go off like that. The judge did let them
      use the animation sequence without the explosion, though, so the jurors
      would have some idea what they were talking about.
      So here's the upshot, so to speak. When the supposedly edited animation
      is shown to the court, BLAM, off goes the animated gun. The prosecutor
      leaps up like HE'S been shot, and starts yelling objections at the top
      of his voice. The judge pounds his gavel like he's spotted a poisonous
      scorpion on the podium and the bailiffs whisk the jurors out of the room
      for their own protection, although whether from the animated gunshots,
      screaming prosecutor or hammer-whacking judge is not certain.
      When the confusion dies down, at least a little, the defense counsel
      claims it was all an accident, that they were sure the banned sequence
      had been edited out, and can't imagine how it got back in.
      See the neat little parallel here? The animated gun went off by
      accident, just like the real one did. Cute, eh?
      Eventually, the jury came back into the room and the judge instructed
      them to disregard what they had seen. You hear TV judges say that sort
      of thing all the time, but I've never figured out how it can work. It's
      sort of like being ordered to enjoy yourself, isn't it? Here a gunshot
      has gone off, all hell has broken loose in the courtroom, you have been
      shoveled into the jury room by a bunch of gun-toting bailiffs, and when
      it's all over, the judge does his Tony Soprano imitation and says, "this
      never happened, got it?"
      I'm not saying Williams is now certain to be convicted. New Jersey
      juries are highly unpredictable. But the thing the defense tried today
      didn't work.
      .
      Now, I know what you're thinking. How is it that the award mentioned in
      the lead paragraph of this article got to be named after Richard Clarke?
      Well, I'll tell you. It's because his whole gambit, like the Williams
      defense, is a fictional, unsupported proposition so improbable that its
      likelihood rests way out on the end of the continuum between reasonable
      doubt and utterly impossible.
      Like sad sack ballistics expert Ernest, Clarke made up a story, only to
      have it turn out his own paper trail contradicted his claims. In
      Clarke's case, release of the news interview he did in 2002, when he
      sang the praises of the Bush administration's anti- terrorism policy to
      the hilt, put the lie to his book-Sixty Minutes-9/11 panel statements
      that they were all asleep at the switch. Clarke may have thought he had
      a smoking gun, but just like the one in Ernest's tests, it wouldn't
      fire. It turns out not to have been real, just an animation.
      .
      Ernest will collect his expert testimony fee, and Clarke will collect
      his book royalties, but their credibility is, if you'll pardon the
      expression, shot. A new poll shows only about 25% of Americans believe
      Clarke is a sincere fellow, while twice that number think he's motivated
      by politics, greed, narcissism or some combination thereof.
      Outside the Somerville courtroom, a posse of placard-carrying Williams
      supporters marched in support of their man. They probably believed every
      word the ballistics guru said, and didn't think there was anything wrong
      with the jury seeing the ersatz explosion. Whatever Williams' clever
      lawyers peddle, they buy.
      <>
      Outside the Beltway, lots of fervent Democrats will march to the beat of
      Clarke or any other anti-Bush drummer, explaining away inconsistencies,
      demanding that Condoleezza Rice be stretched on the rack until she
      confesses. Whatever John Kerry's clever spin-doctors peddle, they buy.
      .
      And, of course, there's lots more testimony to be heard. Maybe the jury
      will let Williams off. Maybe the voters will go with Kerry. But their
      causes haven't been helped lately, that's for darned sure.
      .
      Veteran GOP media consultant Jay Bryant's regular columns are available
      at www.theoptimate.com, and his commentaries may be heard on NPR's 'All
      Things Considered.'
      ©2004 Jay Bryant
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.