On 27 May 2001 04:54:26 -0400, ka@sorry.no.email (Kenneth Almquist) wrote: snip >Jurors many have had more questions about Henson's recording people's
>addresses than about his picketting. As illustrated by the reaction
>to Scientology's attempts to investigate its critics (consider the
>raid on penet.fi), attempting to learn people's addresses can easily
>be seen as an attempt to intimidate. I don't recall that Henson ever
>giving a reason for doing this.
I did in postings last summer. The addresses went to Arnie Lerma who was mailing out postcards. >> The other limitation the court put on the defense under 352 was to
>> forbid mention of Scientology policy or religious practices such as
>> financially rewarding complainants and witnesses as in the policy
>> letter of 1 September 1969R.
>The jury might not have been that impressed by this sort of testimony
>in any case. I presume that evidence that defense had no evidence
>that witnesses in *this* case were given financial rewards, and that
>if defense did present such evidence, the judge would have allowed the
>jury to see it. General information about Scientology could have
>influenced the jury, but if a witness appears sufficiently credible to
>the jury, that impression may have more impact than general information
>which is not directly tied to the particular witness.
Normally corporate policy under which the "victims" operated would be permitted to be introduced. In this case it was not. The corporate policy included payments and such documents as TR-L. >The main testimony that Scientologists felt threatened was by Ken
>Holden. The DA filed a motion to disallow the testimony showing that
>Scientologists responded basicly the same way to all protestors.
>However, once Holden described the steps that Scientology took to keep
>its people away from Henson, it would certainly make sense to ask if
>the same steps were taken for all picketters. The obvious followup
>question is whether he was frightened of all these people. It would
>be interesting to know how this exchange went.
>
>One posting talks about a videotape of Scientology thugs chasing
>Henson into traffic. Henson didn't try to obtain this tape and
>introduce it into evidence (as far as I know). Again, it would be
>interesting to know exactly how Holden explained the dispatching of
>"thugs" when Henson showed up.
I did ask that it be produced. Jim Harr said it was a waste of effort because it had nothing to do with how scared the "victims' were and in fact hiring thugs to make it difficult for me to picket just showed how scared they were. >Holden's testimony that Scientologists took all sorts of steps to keep
>away from Henson could have had a significant impact on the jury,
>because it showed that Scientologists did not consider Henson
>harmless. The fact that the jury convicted suggests that Henson's
>attorney was unable to effectively challenge the impression that
>Scientologists were afraid of Henson's alleged potential for physical
>violence rather than of the contents of his signs.
>> The same limitations prevented the defendant from explaining the
>> paraphrase in Exhibit 23A of the last three words of "fair game"
>> ("destroy them utterly") that were most likely interperted by the
>> jury as a threat to Scientologists rather than reference to a threat
>> against critics and ex members who try to practice Scientology outside
>> of the corporate structure from the founder of Scientology.
>The DA filed a motion to (in effect) keep the defendant from
>introducing Scientology's doctrines into evidence, and I understand
>that the motion was granted. That motion didn't cover the case where
>the prosecution introduced a Scientology doctrine into evidence. So
>I don't know exactly what the court rule here, or why. Henson didn't
>testify, so it's not the case that Henson's lawyer asked him what he
>meant by the post and the Court ruled the question out of order.
>
>Another piece of evidence against Henson is that he talked about using
>psychological warfare against Miscavige. Presumably, he meant for
><expletive deleted> to feel threatened, or at least uncomfortable.
Yes, but my psychological warfare was not based on physical threats. A typical example was the post where I complained about having to fill out my expense reports in Euros. >I don't think Henson said what the goal of this psychological warfare
>was.
Reform or complete disolution of the corporate structure of scientology. It is obviously incompatible with democratic government. >As I understand the law, section 422.6 covers denial of
>Constitutional rights, which include the right to practice one's
>religious beliefs unless the religious practice conflicts with laws
>such as the law against manslaughter.
Strange you would mention manslaughter. Scientology practices of great pressure to be upstat in the Thursday reports resulted in the death of Ashlee Shaner on Wed. evening. >
>As I said at the beginning of this article, I did not attend the trial
>and have not read the transcript. But based on what I do know, my
>primary conclusion is that the jury felt that the prosecution had
>prima facie case, and so it was necessary for the defense to explain
>Henson's actions as something other than an attempt to intimidate
>Scientologists from practicing their religion. If Henson had gone on
>the stand, it wouldn't have mattered too much if the Court hadn't
>allowed Henson to explain his actions fully. The jury would still
>know that Henson had explanations, even if it didn't know what the
>explanations were.
You are perhaps right here. 20-20 hindsight is unfortunately one of our least useful skills. Keith Henson > Kenneth Almquist