Friday, May 20, 2011

Civil and or Human Rights May Not Apply...

Could the Unabomber and Chicago's Tylenol poisoner be one and the same? FBI agents investigating the Tylenol killings, unsolved for nearly 30 years, want Ted Kaczynski's DNA, but they aren't saying whether there's any reason to believe he might be a match.

Chicago FBI spokeswoman Cynthia Yates said the bureau wants DNA from "numerous individuals" including Kaczynski, although she wouldn't provide details about any of the others. The FBI's efforts to get Kaczynski's DNA became publicly known because of a court motion he filed seeking to keep materials he claims would exonerate him in the Tylenol case: items from his Montana cabin that the U.S. Marshals Service is auctioning off.

Kaczynski lived in the tiny cabin as he sent off mail bombs that killed three people and wounded several others in attacks that began in the late 1970s. The FBI dubbed the man the Unabomber because the bombs originally targeted university professors and airline executives.

Kaczynski, who grew up in the Chicago area, was captured in 1996, pleaded guilty two years later and is serving a life sentence in federal prison in Colorado.

He has declined to voluntarily provide a DNA sample to agents investigating the Tylenol poisonings, which left seven people dead in the space of three days beginning Sept. 29, 1982. The victims took cyanide-laced Tylenol from packages that had been tampered with.

The deaths triggered a national scare and a huge recall, and eventually led to the widespread adoption of tamperproof packaging for over-the-counter drugs.

Kaczynski's attorney, John Balasz, said he's "completely convinced" that Kaczynski had no involvement in Tylenol case, and added that he thinks the FBI wants his DNA not because they have evidence linking him, but because they want to definitively rule him out as a suspect.

"You've got to ask the FBI how serious they are. I think it's probably more that they want to exclude him," Balasz said.

Yates declined to say whether the FBI would try to compel Kaczynski to give a sample. In the motion he filed over his belongings, Kaczynski said the officials who notified him of the FBI's request told him the agency was prepared to go to court to get the DNA.

Kaczynski said, without elaborating, that he would provide a sample "if the FBI would satisfy a certain condition that is not relevant here," but Balasz said the government will need to go to court to get one.

Kaczynski filed the court motion May 9 in California, where he was tried. The Sacramento Bee first reported on the filing in Thursday's paper. Kaczynski wants to keep certain items taken from his cabin in 1996, including journals he says could prove his whereabouts in 1982 and other evidence that could clear him in the Tylenol case.

The government auction of Kaczynski's materials began Wednesday and runs through June 2.

Among the items available is his manifesto, which helped lead to his arrest after newspapers published it and Kaczynski's brother recognized his writing style and anti-technology beliefs. His books, clothing, typewriters and sneakers are also up for auction. The cabin itself is on display at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

Last year, the U.S. Marshals netted about $580 million for state and local law enforcement agencies and $345 million for victims by holding auctions of items seized in asset-forfeiture cases.
In a response to Kaczynski's motion filed Monday, federal prosecutors said the courts lack the jurisdiction to bar the government from auctioning the items. They also said Kaczynski hasn't been indicted in connection with the Tylenol investigation and that "no such federal prosecution is currently planned."

The FBI collected DNA samples from Kaczynski after his arrest, but that material "might have degraded to the point that it is not usable," said Ross Rice with the FBI in Chicago. "It's always best to have a current sample."

Officials are barred from taking a DNA sample from Kaczynski without either his consent or a court order. Rice said it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether to go to court to get the genetic material.

"Even though he's a prisoner, he still has rights," Rice said.

The Tylenol poisonings case has stymied investigators for nearly 30 years, and no charges have ever been filed in the deaths.

In 2009, federal agents searched the Boston home of James W. Lewis, who served more than 12 years in prison for sending an extortion note to Tylenol maker Johnson & Johnson demanding $1 million to "stop the killing." Lewis has denied involvement in the poisonings.

A friend of Lewis, Roger Nicholson, told The Associated Press early last year that Lewis and his wife had given DNA samples and fingerprints to investigators.

Kaczynski, for his part, said in his motion that he has "never even possessed any potassium cyanide" — the poison used in the Tylenol killings.

Helen Jensen, a former nurse who accompanied investigators to the home of one of the victims, said she hopes this latest news isn't a dead end like so many before. She said she still occasionally talks to the grandmother of a 12-year-old girl who died and that "her whole family was destroyed by it."

"It sure would be nice to finally get some end to the whole thing, for the people that are survivors," Jensen said.

xX   Let the Lunatic Speak   Xx

My first comment on this article...


Some may or may not agree with me...

I don't care about a prisoner's rights... Talk about an oxymoron! That is right up there with Military Intelligence and Jumbo Shrimp!

This man has pleaded guilty and was convicted of the murder and attempted murder of other people. Whether he felt it was justified or not, who is he? No one of any importance to decide who lives or dies!

There are a lot of people alive today that annoy the hell out of me… However much to my dismay, they are still above ground and kicking! I could not justify on any level hurting another human being. I could not in a million years find enough reason to take on the task of shoveling another man or woman loose from the mortal coil.

If someone is found guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, and in this case the man plead guilty… He has earned a one way ticket to the morgue, with a shiny toe tag for his postmortem bling. I am in total support of capital punishment! I will go a step further and say bring back public execution! You start beheading people on Public Square with a guillotine; I promise you will see your crime drop OVER NIGHT!

The world is in a permanent state of decline… People here and in many other places have NO FEAR of discipline! They know that they can and will get away with murder, literally! Parents are no longer allowed to punish or discipline their kids. Teachers and schools are forbidden to do so. Then as kids grow up with no real idea of what is wrong or right and total lack of morals, we have adults in society without a clue! That is why we are where we are and heading to hell in a hand basket!

I see people protesting the death sentence on the news and I laugh at them! I really do! They are holding up signs quoting scriptures… Interesting tactic, how people will take snippets of the scriptures and use what they want for their current agenda… There was a convicted murder being put to death and there was someone outside of the jail holding a picket sign that read: Thou Shall Not Kill

If that man who is condemned to die upheld that belief… HE WOULD NOT BE THERE!

The Unibomber has confessed and been convicted… When he took it upon himself to take away the rights of another human being… HE FORFEITED HIS OWN! He is entitled to NOTHING!

Not one person has the right to take the life of another person. Not one person has the right to rob another human being of their rights or liberties. So, when I see how an inmate that happens to be a murderer, thief, and or rapist starts screaming that their rights have been violated… I laugh!

They took those rights from another if not many. THEY GET NOTHING!


Yahoo User: Tao
You laugh? I laugh that you laugh. Clearly you've never read the Unabomber Manifesto because you sound a lot like him.


Tao... I am guessing you did not read my ENTIRE post! I wrote that I cannot see how he justified ANYTHING he did! NOTHING!

He has taken lives of people! He has taken some one off the face of the Earth and removed a loved one from a family! HOW can he possibly thing he was doing the right thing? Hmm?

Then you come at me saying I sound like him? DUDE! You are on crack you stooge!

I have no idea where you would come up with the notion that I resemble that madman! READ my statements... I am sure that you are an average person that would rather read the first one or 2 sentences then jump to your OWN conclusions of MY thoughts!

Sorry to inform you of this you idiotic numskull... I DO NOT condone his actions or his manifesto! I am sure you have not read it either judging the comment you left for me... Grow up, learn patience and take what people write and try to consider the entire message... NOT just what you interpret!



Yahoo User: Marg
You say yourself no one has the right to take the life of another person. This is an awful person but what you suggest makes us just like him.

 
My Reply to Marg's comment:

How does that make us like him? We have laws, do we not? There are people that in today's world do NOT abide by said laws! Right? They break the laws and in doing so they infringe on another person's rights... At that point, HOW in what realm are they eligible for anything?

OK, simply put... Not the Unibomber... A random person commits murder... OK? Then they go through a lengthy legal battle. Most of the time the bill is pushed on to the tax payer because the accused are usually unable to pay for it themselves.

Then there is the appeal process, MORE tax dollars and time. Then think about it… Does the accused get to go back into the free world and work to pay their debts or work towards paying on their legal fees? NO! They sit in a jail cell and get a roof, a bed, free medical, and 3 square meals a day. Guess who is paying the bill… We the people…

Then comes the trial and the long drawn out process and then the accused sits and gets older and older all the while we are paying for them to live.

Then comes the sentencing which will also be appealed and appealed. These people have been tried and found guilty then convicted by a jury of their peers! They have robbed another person of their rights to life. They took a Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Son, and or Daughter away from another family!

Now, Marg…  Do something for me? You go to a prison when the family of the victims are there to see justice done… You tell THEM that you feel that in us punishing this person for their crimes and actions are making us NO better than the criminal themselves… You do that for me! When you do, I will stand right beside you to call 911 for when they attack you…

Our laws may not make sense all the time. There are times that even I ask “how is that a law?”  However, I do all I can to do what I can within the confines of the laws…

Sorry to rant, but your comment holds no water in my opinion!


Yahoo User DouglasC wrote:
I get where you are coning from but I have reservations on the death penalty. Not because I feel the guilty should live but because there have been many incidents of innocents being convicted. Since the advent of DNA testing there have been several people exonerated. It would have done them little good if they had been put to death. I suppose all well and good unless one happens to be one of those unjustly convicted.



I was happy to reply!

Thank you for your input Douglas! Truly! I am sorry to those for not totally clarifying my standing.

I agree with you totally! The use of DNA evidence is really playing into affect nowadays. However, my point and my argument is simply in reference to those who are beyond the shadow of a doubt, not just circumstantial evidence or some random guy of the same ethnicity or race just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am talking about people that could not deny their guilt if they had or wanted to! For example, a number of years ago there was a local guy that killed his wife. In doing so, she ran out of the house and jetted up the street. While she ran from him, he shot her in the back with a shotgun and needless to say she died on the spot. Then came the arrest, and hearing. He pleads not guilty… There were at least 8 eye witnesses. That is beyond comprehension!

There are stories in the news every day with people that have spent years incarcerated unjustly! To those people, they do deserve settlements and serious apologies for their loss of life.  Time and Life are pretty much the only things you cannot return to someone else!


Yahoo User Rajago wrote:

Umm, couple of issues here... While I somewahat agree with some of the sentiments, i.e. kill folks who kill indiscriminately, your argument has got some gaping holes in it.

First, your support of the death penalty means you can, in fact, come up with a reason to kill someone. I personally don't have a problem with that, but just be clear on what it is you believe.

Second, although your interpretation is the modern one, it's generally accepted that the correct translation is "Thou shall not murder." There's a huge difference between "killing" and "murdering"...

Third, The phrase you're looking for is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "shadow of a doubt". If we're talking legalese here, can we at least stick to the correct terms?

Fourth, if you violate my rights, say, by attacking me with lethal force, I most definitely have the right to kill you. And I won't feel bad about it either. Again, I get where you are going here, but your logic is fuzzy at best... You can't say in one paragraph that no one has the right to take another's life and then be pro death penalty in the following sentence or paragraph. It's entirely contradictory... you either believe that there are cases where it is okay to take another's life, or you don't. You can't come down in the middle, that's equivalent to being "a little" pregnant. You are or you aren't...

Please, figure out what you believe.

This is where I take things to another level! 

 
To the User known as: Rojago

I thank you for correcting me. I am pro death penalty! I am also against taking life without just cause! Thinking about it tho, there are plenty of things that I see in the news on a daily basis that would push a normal law abiding citizen into that realm where Murder or Killing is within the threshold of justification!

Rojago, I find myself apologizing to you for not being as eloquent with words as you seem to be. I do not speak legalese as you say. I do not like lawyers and I have no interest in learning that form of speech!

Looking at how anal you were at picking apart every word I said, I have some thoughts for you!

Rojago:  “Second, although your interpretation is the modern one, it's generally accepted that the correct translation is "Thou shall not murder." There's a huge difference between "killing" and "murdering"...”   

Drew: If you have a problem with the quote of the sign I referenced? Please talk to the protester that made it! I cannot control the ignorance of others! I only hope to contain mine!

Rojago: “Third, The phrase you're looking for is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "shadow of a doubt". If we're talking legalese here, can we at least stick to the correct terms?”

Drew: Phrases are just that… Phrases… I lived in the North many years of my life, and people called a can of Pepsi or Coke: Pop… Down south, people call ALL carbonated beverages: Coke… Terms can and do vary! So, here you are just really being a jerk!

Rojago: “Fourth, if you violate my rights, say, by attacking me with lethal force, I most definitely have the right to kill you. And I won't feel bad about it either. Again, I get where you are going here, but your logic is fuzzy at best... You can't say in one paragraph that no one has the right to take another's life and then be pro death penalty in the following sentence or paragraph. It's entirely contradictory... you either believe that there are cases where it is okay to take another's life, or you don't. You can't come down in the middle, that's equivalent to being "a little" pregnant. You are or you aren't... Please, figure out what you believe.”

Drew: Again, I do see your points on how I am “fuzzy”…  I could not live with myself should I ever hurt someone. Justified or not, I would feel remorse and extremely guilty for doing so! Even under extreme cases. For example, I have siblings. I have 3 sisters, and growing up, I was extremely protective of them and I am still to this day. Should anyone hurt them, I would feel vindictive and there would be urges to act on it. However, I am NOT above the law! I would do all I could as a big brother to comfort and help my sisters.

I have a wife, I have 3 children. Should anyone harm them, yes I would feel very compelled to retaliate! If I did, I know I would also be criminally charged and I would then fall rightfully victim to what I myself believe! I would not have rights due to the fact I infringed on another human being. So, I would do all I could to take things legally as possible.

I have lived in a lot of bad area in my life. I have seen more crime happen in front of me than I care to recall. People today have no care or fear of punishment. I firmly and whole heartedly believe that the laws are in place to protect, however the ramifications for breaking the laws are FAR from severe enough.

I don’t know what you want me to say! All I know is that WE as human beings are now and always will be totally and completely contradicting to one another and at times our OWN thoughts!

You have yourself a GREAT day! Oh, and try not to kill any one! I would really hate to see you r name in the news…



Yahoo User: bigbadjaxer
FLIP FLOP

I could not justify on any level hurting another human being. I could not in a million years find enough reason to take on the task of shoveling another man or woman loose from the mortal coil.

FLIP FLOP
He has earned a one way ticket to the morgue, with a shiny toe tag for his postmortem bling. I am in total support of capital punishment!

Sir, Are you planning on running for political office? You sure do talk like a politician.

 
bigbadjaxer... Read what I just said to another user...

Run for office? No thank you! I will consider a lot of careers to support my family, but there are 3 I refuse to take up...

1. Male Prostitution
2. Politics
3. Telemarketing

If you asked me, all 3 have a lot of similarities!

No comments:

Post a Comment