Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

Yardpilot wrote:

> "Ken Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Yardpilot wrote:
> > > "Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >(Whether
> > > > >Bush was busted for cocaine possession is debatable, but I tend to
> > > > >accept the assertion as fact, given that the document which would
> > > > >have indicated that fact has mysteriously been destroyed.)
> > > >
> > > > You accept it as true because the document that would prove it to be
> true
> > > > has been destroyed?  What would you think if the document existed?!?!!
> > >
> > > The argument that "it must be true because there is no evidence" sounds
> very
> > > much like a J. Edgar or J. Reno sort of spin. It is also the argument of a
>
> > > great many conspiracy theorists.
> >
> >   It's a common application of the basic rules of evidence.
>
> No it isn't. It is a deliberate distortion and misapplication of the rules
> of evidence. If you can show that evidence has been deliberately tampered
> with, destroyed or suppressed, you can make some onferences from that.

  That Shrub's Texas driving record (including criminal convictions)
was wiped 'clean' is evidence of deliberate tampering.  So, we can
make fair inferences from that; it appears to corroborate the claim
that Shrub was a coke-head.