test


Remember me
Neil Stammer Sucks(part 2)
26 may 2000Jugglethat
26 may 2000|- nospam
26 may 2000|- stephen.whitis@spam…
27 may 2000|  \ MoonDoggie
27 may 2000|- Danny Colyer
18 dec 2015|  \ redstripedown505@gm…
27 may 2000|- Alan Mackenzi
27 may 2000|- Matt Howell
Our Sparky [was: Neil... yadda, yadda,…
28 may 2000\ Michael Ferguson


Subject: Re: Neil Stammer Sucks(part 2)
Author: Alan Mackenzi
Date: 27 may 2000

Jugglethat <jugglethat@aol.com> wrote on 26 May 2000 07:44:23 GMT:
> Andrew Conway wrote:

>>.... Neil remained in Albuquerque as long as he was legally required to
>>do so, even though it would have been relatively easy for him to jump
>>bail. When his case was dismissed he was free to leave, and did so.
>>There was no legal requirement for him to stay around and wait to see
>>if he would be reindicted.

> Who told you this, Neil? Neil was never "free to leave" and therfore
> DID jump bail. His case was only dismissed simultaneounsly with the
> start of the second Indictment hearings...that means he was free to
> leave for about fifteen minutes. Still the dismissal papers would have
> to be filed and a $100,000.00 bond would have to be signed off and run
> through the court system and well...that takes much longer than 15
> minutes. In other words... Neil is lying to you too, there Sparky. At
> what point will you realize this? Of course, if you helped him secure
> a false passport and flee the country it doesn't matter when you
> realize this....you may already be in some serious trouble yourself.
> Gosh, I hope no one sends your posts and your Homepage
> (http://www.juggling.org/~conway/index.html) to the Detectives working
> on this case.

OK, "Jugglethat", why don't you publish your own name and address, and
give Andrew the opportunity to serve a libel writ, should he wish to do
so?

>>The case was dismissed due to a legal fiasco. For many years, Grand
>>Juries in Albuquerque had not been told the legal definition of the
>>crimes for which they were supposed to be indicting people.

> Where do you get this crap? Grand Juries are made up of real adult
> people who actually ask questions and question the answers. They are
> people who take pride in their responsibility to thoroughly research
> facts presented and weigh the evidence in front of them. You make them
> sound like assembled village idiots whom are being dupted into
> ill-informed and purposely unjust indictments. The reason Stammers case
> was called into question was due to the fact that the Supreme court
> ruled that certain Grand Jury instructions and statutes be READ ALOUD -
> not referenced and then read by the Grand Jury (from the binder) in
> every single case. Bernalillo County Grand Juries are given explicit
> written instructions and detailed written legal definitions. In fact
> they are given an easy-to-use binder (about three inches thick) of
> definitions, statutes, examples and references in an effort to provide
> them with an all inclusive reference. The idea here is that the binder
> doesn't require the Grand Jury to rely on memory alone. Still the court
> wanted everything read aloud as a formality.

>>All pending cases were ruled invalid by the state supreme court. The
>>DA's office set about reindicting everyone, and the DA made it clear
>>that they were going to do the important cases first. Since they
>>postponed the reindictment of Neil's case for so long, I can only
>>assume that they don't think it is very important.

> OK, hold it right there, Bank-of-America-boy... YOU assume?? What
> the hell do YOU KNOW??? It took the DA only nine days to reindict
> (that includes two week ends - 4 days). Neils case moved extremely
> quickly and was viewed as one of the most serious. Here is a link to
> an article in the ABQ Tribune:
>
> http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news00/041300_uli.shtml

> ..note that the only case mentioned by name - out of ALL of the cases -
> was Stammers. While it might be YOUR ASSUMPTION that Stammers actions
> are a non-issue, allow me to remind you...you live at <address> ...not
> Albuquerque.

Incitement to harassment, indeed. How brave and noble of you to do this
whilst hiding your identity!

> This is a big deal here in this town and we demand to see justice
> served.

I doubt you even understand the meaning of the word "justice". It
includes concepts like the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven,
and the right to a fair trial. In a case such as this, it would also
involve the right to have one's identity protected unless and until guilt
is proven.

> Neil's flight from prosecution cannot be rationalized.

It can. See below.

> It's a matter of law. He will be found and extradicted.

An inept and brutal system of law. He might be found, he might not. He
may or may not be "extradicted", if that is how you insist on spelling
it. If that was intended as a joke, it was in remarkably bad taste.

>>...In view of the seriousness of the charges, my belief is that they
>>have not been working on the case due to a lack of credible evidence.

> If that's the case, what did he have to lose by standing his ground and
> clearing his name.

Get real, you ignorant coward.

When has lack of serious evidence ever prevented legal attrocities in
your part of the world? If you've forgotten the case of 10 year-old Raoul
WŁthrich, I'll bet Neil Stammer hasn't. Last August Raoul was dragged,
handcuffed, from his home in Colorado in the middle of the night, on the
unsubstantiated allegations of a neighbour who allegedly observed him
through a pair of binoculars sexually abusing his young sister, something
he vigorously denies. He has stated that while under detention he was
repeatedly beaten and sexually abused. The rest of the family felt forced
to flee to Switzerland, for fear of the younger sister (pre-school age)
being taken into so-called "protection". International diplomatic
pressure eventually secured the boy's release, with severe emotional
damage, after 72 days in detention.

Or is neighbouring state, New Mexico, a civilised decent place, where
reasonableness prevails?

Presumably, while this case was underway, Mr. Stammer was able to go
about his business untroubled by harrassment from the likes of you. How
plausible.

And of course, on remaining unconvicted after a trial, he could expect
reasonable compensation from the legal authorities for his wrecked
reputation, and his wrecked life. Even more plausible.

And just as certainly, the jury at his trial, drawn from those who are
"determined to see justice served" and who no doubt remain totally
unprejudiced by local press coverage couldn't possibly wrongly convict
him.

> In view of the seriousness of the charges, MY belief is that Neil ran
> because of the overwhelming amount of extremely credible evidence and
> he didn't want to spend the next 20 years in jail.

If this was really the case, he would have run months ago. Or maybe,
just perhaps, seeing that his position in his home town has been utterly
ruined - one can never satisfactorily clear one's name of such an
allegation - he has decided now is as good a time to move on as any - I
certainly wouldn't hang around for years waiting for your legal system to
make up its mind wheter or not to try me.

> Nevertheless, he now resides -perhaps thanks to your assistance - in
> secret, in yet another unsuspecting community, no doubt impressing
> them with stories of fame and world travel. Maybe showing the local
> kids a trick or two. I think that makes you happy, there
> Sparky...happy, at least, as long as those kids aren't <boy1> or
> <boy2>....

Wonderful, that, making allusions to two particular children.

> Jugglethat
> who resents your assertion that anonymous AOL accounts that have never
> posted before being used to comment on the case ....are infringing on
> YOUR turf. ...so sue me, sparky

Post your name and address, "Jugglethat" or "Cybereye7" or whatever you
choose to call yourself, and maybe he might just do that. Or haven't you
got the guts?

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove one of them (leaving, say, "a").